Stoddard v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co.
Decision Date | 15 March 1904 |
Citation | 105 Mo. App. 512,80 S.W. 33 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | STODDARD v. ST. LOUIS & M. R. R. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferriss, Judge.
Action by Mary Stoddard against the St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad Company. From an order granting a new trial after verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
C. F. Schneider, for appellant. McKeighan & Watts and R. A. Holland, Jr., for respondent.
Plaintiff, while a passenger thereon, was injured by falling upon the rear platform of one of defendant's street railway cars. The suit was to recover damages for injuries to her person caused by the fall. She recovered a verdict in the court below, which, on motion of defendant, was set aside, and a new trial granted. From the order granting the new trial, plaintiff appealed. The ground assigned by the trial judge for setting aside the verdict is that the court erred in refusing defendant's instruction, offered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, to the effect that on her own showing she was not entitled to recover.
The negligence alleged in the petition is that, after defendant stopped its car to receive passengers, the plaintiff proceeded to board the car as a passenger, "but, before she was able or had time to safely and fully board said car, and while she was still upon the rear platform thereof, and in the act of entering said car, the said car suddenly jerked and lurched forward, thereby throwing the plaintiff violently and with great force against the rear end and floor of the platform of said car, causing her to be seriously hurt and injured in and about her back, spine, limbs, and body; that said injuries were caused by the defendant's agents, employés, and servants carelessly and negligently causing and permitting said car suddenly and in the manner aforesaid to start, jerk, and lurch forward before plaintiff had safely and fully entered said car, and before she had reasonable time to safely and fully enter said car."
Plaintiff located herself on Old Manchester Road, in the city of St. Louis, and testified: On cross-examination her evidence in respect to the fall is as follows: "
William Vaughn, a witness for plaintiff, testified as follows: On cross-examination he testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. Metropolitan St. by. Co.
...safety on the platform, was negligence which would render the company liable even if it started without a jerk. Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. App. 512, 80 S. W. 33; Fields v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 169 Mo. App. 624, 155 S. W. 845; Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 113 Mo......
-
Brady v. Springfield Traction Co.
...time to give passengers an opportunity to board it and reach a place of safety. [McGuire v. Railroad, 103 Mo.App. 459; Stoddard v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 512, 80 S.W. 33; Dougherty v. Railroad, 81 Mo. 325 and And if it be necessary for the party boarding the car to reach a seat and be seated......
-
Spring v. Kansas City Area Transp. Authority
...S.W. 91, 94 (1912). A bus driver's duty is to allow passengers to reach a place of safety before starting. Stoddard v. St. Louis & M.R.R., 105 Mo.App. 512, 80 S.W. 33, 35-36 (1904). Whether a seat is the only place of safety is a question of fact in light of the circumstances of a particula......
-
Rice v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.
... ... case the trial judge submitted the question to them ... Plattor v. Seattle Electric Co., 44 Wash. 408, 87 P ... 489; Stoddard v. Railroad, 105 Mo.App. 512, 80 S.W ... 33; Brady v. Traction Co., 140 Mo.App. 421, 124 S.W ... [80 Wash. 50] 1070; Steeg v. St. Paul ... ...