Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. O'Connor

• Decision Date: 22 January 1920
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 434
• Citation: 204 Ala. 24,85 So. 384
• Parties: MONTGOMERY LIGHT & TRACTION CO. v. O'CONNOR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

85 So. 384

204 Ala. 24

MONTGOMERY LIGHT & TRACTION CO. v. O'CONNOR.

3 Div. 434

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 22, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Action by Kate O'Connor against the Montgomery Light & Traction Company for damages for personal injuries. Verdict for the defendant, which on motion of plaintiff was set aside, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Rushton Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Hill Hill, Whiting & Thomas, of Montgomery, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Appellee sued appellant to recover damages for a personal injury suffered by appellee. There was a verdict for the appellant which appellee moved the court to set aside on the ground that the court had committed error in giving to the jury special instructions in writing requested by appellant. The trial court made an order setting aside the verdict, after which this appeal.

At and near the point where appellee was injured appellant maintained and operated three parallel tracks in the street. The distance between the center and north tracks was 5 feet 3 or 4 inches, from rail to rail. The body of each car overhangs its track about 18 inches, so that the space between cars standing side by side on adjacent tracks is about 2 feet. Appellee waited on the north sidewalk for a car to West End which would pass to the west on the middle track. An Oak Park car passed west on the middle track and came to a stop at the usual place for letting off and taking on passengers. Then the West End car passed and came to a stop in the rear of the Oak Park car. About the same time a car moved west on the north track coming to a stop opposite the Oak Park car. Appellee, observing the car on the north track and crossing that track to the rear of the car, approached the rear of the West End car intending to get on from the right and rear as was customary and proper. As she was about to get on the car, the conductor "motioned to her that passengers were coming out and to stand aside, which she did." The car, approaching from the rear on the north track, struck appellee, causing considerable injuries. Appellee testified that she did not see the car which struck her. The cause was tried on the general issue and the plea of contributory negligence.

The court committed error in giving at appellant's request charges lettered A,B,C,D, and E. There was, of course, no duty on the part of appellant to provide...