Louisville & S.I. Traction Co. v. Korbe

• Decision Date: 29 November 1910
• Docket Number: No. 21,793.,21,793.
• Citation: 93 N.E. 5,175 Ind. 450
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & S. I. TRACTION CO. v. KORBE.

175 Ind. 450

93 N.E. 5

LOUISVILLE & S. I. TRACTION CO.

v.KORBE.

No. 21,793.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 29, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; Harry C. Montgomery, Judge.

Action by Mary Korbe against the Louisville & Southern Indiana Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the Appellate Court and it transferred the case to the Supreme Court under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 1394. Reversed and new trial ordered.

For opinion in Appellate Court before transfer, see 90 N. E. 483.

George H. Voight and Charles D. Kelso, for appellant. Stotsenburg & Weathers, for appellee.

JORDAN, J.

As disclosed by appellee's complaint, appellant railroad company is a corporation duly organized, etc. It owns and operates an electric street railroad in the city of New Albany, Floyd county, Ind., and is a common carrier of passengers for hire over its road. It further appears from the complaint that on August 29, 1906, plaintiff below (appellee herein) became and was accepted by appellant as a passenger on one of its cars so owned, controlled, managed, and conducted by it in the city of New Albany; that she became a passenger on the car at the north terminus of the State street line in said city and she desired to be carried as a passenger on the car to the intersection of State and Spring streets in that city, a regular stopping place on signal to the conductor of the car. As the car upon which she had taken passage reached said regular stopping place, one of the passengers thereon gave the usual signal to the conductor in charge of the car for stopping; that the conductor signaled the motorman to stop the car at said stopping place; that as the car was stopping the plaintiff arose from her seat therein and while it was moving very slowly she stepped with one foot on the running board of the car so that she could quickly alight therefrom when the car came to a full stop. While the plaintiff was so in the act of stepping on the running board, the conductor in charge of the car negligently signaled the motorman to start the car, and in response to such signal the car was suddenly, and to the plaintiff unexpectedly, started forward with a sudden and unexpected movement thereof, by reason of which plaintiff was thrown to the ground and injured.

The answer was a general denial. Trial by jury and general verdict returned in favor of plaintiff; also answers to a series of interrogatories were returned by the jury. Over appellant's motion for a new trial judgment was rendered on the general verdict. The errors relied upon for a reversal are: (1) Overruling demurrer to the complaint. (2) Overruling motion for a new trial.

The complaint is said to be defective because it does not allege that the place where the accident in question occurred was one where appellant company was required to stop for the purpose of permitting passengers to alight from its cars. This criticism, under the facts alleged, is untenable for the complaint shows that a signal was given to stop the car upon which plaintiff was a passenger at a regular stopping place, being the intersection of State and Spring streets in said city of New Albany. It was at the latter place where the accident happened. This point or place being a regular or usual stopping place on appellant's line to receive and discharge passengers, it certainly may be said to be one at which the company was requiredto stop to receive and discharge passengers from its cars. The complaint is not open to the criticism in question.

The court, at the request of appellee, gave the jury instruction No. 4, which is as follows: “If a car stops at a place where cars are accustomed to stop for the discharge of passengers, a passenger desiring to alight has a right to assume that the car will remain standing long enough to enable all who...