Louisville Ry. Co. v. O'Connor
| Decision Date | 16 April 1907 |
| Citation | 101 S.W. 305 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE RY. CO. v. O'CONNER. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Third Division.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by Elizabeth O'Conner against the Louisville Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Fairleigh Straus & Fairleigh, Forcht & Field, and Greene & Van Winkle for appellant.
Kinney & Fitzgerald, for appellee.
This action was instituted by the appellee, Elizabeth O'Conner, to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained by her while alighting from one of appellant's cars at the intersection of Eighteenth and Broadway streets, in the city of Louisville. She claims that the accident occurred by the conductor's stepping on her dress as she was in the act of alighting, and thus pinioning her to the step of the car, and that when the car started she, being thus pinioned, was thrown to the ground and injured. The material allegations of the petition were denied by the answer, which also set up as a defense the contributory negligence of appellee. The affirmative allegations of the answer being denied by reply, the issues were completed. A trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $250. The defendant is here on appeal.
As said before, the theory of the plaintiff is that she was thrown to the ground by the conductor of the car first negligently stepping upon her dress and pinioning her to the car, and then, when it started, she was thrown to the ground. The theory of the defense is that the conductor did not step upon the plaintiff's dress at all, but that he helped her carefully to the street, and after she had ceased to be a passenger, by some accident or her own negligence, she tripped and fell in the street, and injured herself. There was evidence to sustain both theories, and, inasmuch as we have reached the conclusion that the judgment should be reversed upon another point, we refrain from discussing the testimony.
In the first instruction the court said: "It is conceded here in the testimony, and the evidence makes it clear, that the plaintiff, at the time that she claims to have been injured was a passenger upon the defendant's car; and I wish to instruct you that, while she was a passenger upon the car and while she was in the act of alighting from the car, the law made it the duty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robenson v. Turner
...building was not equipped with a proper fire escape, and the court did not err in instructing the jury to that effect. Louisville Ry. Co. v. O'Conner, 101 S. W. 305, does not announce a contrary rule. In that case it was the theory of the plaintiff that she was injured while a passenger. On......