Underdahl v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1935
• Docket Number: No. 30107.,30107.
• Parties: UNDERDAHL v. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

259 N.W. 78

193 Minn. 548

UNDERDAHL v. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. CO.

No. 30107.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 1, 1935.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Lars O. Rue, Judge.

Action by Olene Underdahl against the Minneapolis Street Railway Company. There was a verdict for defendant, and from an order denying her motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Charles E. Carlson, Edward J. Callahan, and Edward J. Kotrich, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.

R. T. Boardman and J. F. Dulebohn, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

JULIUS J. OLSON, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion for new trial after an adverse verdict. She brought this action to recover damages claimed to have been suffered by her by reason of defendant's negligence while she was a passenger on a street car operated by it. The car was proceeding westerly from Washington avenue in Minneapolis. Plaintiff intended to transfer at Marquette. Before the car reached the intersection, defendant's witnesses say that about in the middle of the block, plaintiff rang the bell, signaling her desire to get off at the usual street intersection next ahead, and then got up from her seat. The testimony as to what thereafter happened is in sharp conflict. As the jury found for defendant, we must necessarily take the facts most favorable to it. The motorneer testified that before he came to the intersection he was operating the car at a rate of speed of about six or seven miles an hour when he noticed an automobile swing in front of the street car, thus compelling him to "slow down, nothing unusual about it. * * * There was no occasion for me to make an emergency stop or jerk the street car." The conductor's testimony is substantially to the same effect. Two passengers corroborate defendant's servants. What is stated relates to the question of defendant's negligence. In respect of plaintiff's contributory negligence we find considerable conflict between the parties. Here, too, the same rule applies respecting adoption of facts most favorable to defendant From the testimony in behalf of defendant it appears that plaintiff got up from her seat before the intersection was reached and stooped over while the car was in motion to pick up her handkerchief or some other small article dropped by her; that as she did so, because the car was in motion, she dropped to her knees; she then arose, but did not make use of the straps immediately above her. Shortly thereafter she fell, the fall taking place before the car had come to a full stop. Mrs. Lowell, a fellow passenger, testified: "She was right just about the center, in that front aisle, going through the front exit. When she fell either time she did not strike a seat or anything. When the car made the slow-down it was shortly after we had crossed Second avenue. We hadn't gotten very far past Second avenue when it happened. I have ridden that line most of the time for two years. I was about five minutes later than usual that morning. I should say that the car was moving the same as usual at that time of the morning with the traffic there always is about eight o'clock. We were going slow. This lady had taken a step or two and then stopped. She dropped her handkerchief. No one else who was already up was disturbed by the movement of the car. I thought the car slowed down and moved in the block quite easily compared to what it often does. It started, it seemed to me, just an ordinary start. The lady left the street car at Nicollet avenue. She wasn't assisted off. The conductor came up to the lady and asked for her name. She didn't want to give it; she said she wasn't hurt. She didn't say to the conductor or anyone that the car jerked or started or stopped with a quick or unusual jerk. Before she got up she was seated on the left side, right in front of me on the long seat. I observed her sitting there and when she got up and she seemed frail and weakly and I was wondering if she was sick. That was before she stooped to pick up her handkerchief. I gave my name to the conductor."

Plaintiff was accustomed to the use of street cars, having made use of such means of transportation, as testified by her, all her life. This particular location was to her well known as her work brought her over this route daily.

From what has been stated, it is clear that the question of defendant's negligence...