Moore v. Davenport & R. I. Ry. Co.

Decision Date04 April 1895
Citation94 Iowa 736,62 N.W. 679
PartiesMOORE v. DAVENPORT & R. I. RY. CO.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Scott county; C. M. Waterman, Judge.

Action at law to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of negligence on the part of the defendant. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial, filed by the defendant, was overruled, and judgment was rendered on the verdict. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.Cook & Dodge, for appellant.

Bills & Hass, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

The only complaint made by the appellant is that the court did not sustain the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. In August, 1892, the defendant owned and operated a street railway in the city of Rock Island and in the city of Davenport, the motive power of which was electricity. The plaintiff claims the material facts to be substantially as follows: On the 20th day of that month she and her sister, Mary, were on a car of the defendant in the city of Rock Island, and, wishing to alight at a crossing, the bell of the car was sounded to stop. The two ladies then went to the rear platform, and when the car had nearly stopped, Mary stepped off. The plaintiff waited for it to stop, but, instead of doing so, its speed was increased with a jerk, and she was thrown to the ground, and received serious injuries, of which some are probably permanent. The fall made her unconscious for a few minutes, and when she recovered consciousness her sister helped her to the curbstone, where they sat down, and waited for the next car. The accident happened a little after 7 o'clock in the evening. The defendant contends that the accident happened before 6 o'clock in the afternoon; that the fall did not make the plaintiff insensible, but that she arose readily, with a little help, and that she and her sister walked away laughing; that the accident did not result from any sudden acceleration of the speed of the car, nor from any negligence on the part of the defendant. One C. W. Wilson made an affidavit in support of the motion for a new trial, in which he states that between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the day of the accident he noticed two young ladies standing on the rear platform of a car near the place of the accident; that one of them stepped off, and the other made a misstep, or tripped, and fell; that she was on the ground but a moment, when she was helped up by her companion; that they went to the sidewalk, and started away, and that he concluded they were not hurt, and paid no further attention to them; and that he is positive that the car did not start up or pitch forward suddenly as the second lady was leaving it. The appellant insists that it is improbable that two accidents happened at the same place on the same day, within less than two hours of each other, which were in all respects substantially alike; that, if its witnesses are credible, there was no sudden start of the car which caused the accident, and that the plaintiff stepped from a moving car without any sufficient reason for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT