McBride v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1898
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,991 - (93).,s. 10,991 - (93).
• Citation: 72 Minn. 291
• Parties: BRIDGET McBRIDE v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 Minn. 291

BRIDGET McBRIDE v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.

Nos. 10,991 - (93).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 19, 1898.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $800 and denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed and new trial granted.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

John L. Townley, for respondent.

CANTY, J.¹

Plaintiff claims that while attempting to board one of defendant's street cars as a passenger she was caught between the gates, which closed in upon her as she was about to step from the ground to the lower step of the car, and was injured. These gates close in upon the lower step, are opened to receive and let off passengers, and are operated by a lever in the hands of the motorman, who stands on the front of the car. She brought this action to recover damages for the injury, alleging that it was caused by defendant's negligence. On the trial she had a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.

1. We are of the opinion that the evidence will sustain a verdict for plaintiff.

2. When charging the jury, the court gave defendant's second request as modified. All of this part of the charge which it is necessary to consider is as follows:

"The competency or incompetency of the trainmen in charge of this car can have no bearing upon this case in determining the liability or want of liability of the defendant, and you are instructed to disregard all evidence and argument of counsel on the subject of the competency or incompetency of the trainmen, or either of them, except that I modify these instructions to this extent, and to this extent only: except that, if the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff was caught in the gates of the car at the time and place as she has testified, they may consider any fact proven to their satisfaction, and that includes the competency or incompetency of these officials, which tends to show that the gates at that time and place were or were not handled by the motorman in charge in a reasonably careful manner."

The modification was excepted to, and is assigned as error. That it is erroneous is settled by Fonda v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 438, 74 N. W. 166, and nothing need be added to what is there said.

3. In charging as to the amount of damages which plaintiff is entitled to recover, the court charged the jury as follows:

"You have a right...