United Railways & Electric Co. v. Weir

²⁸⁷ Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee sued the appellant company for personal injuries sustained by her when alighting from one of its cars. The narr. avers that on the 7th day of August, 1903, while the plaintiff was a passenger on one of the cars of the defendant company at, or near the corner of Baltimore and Paca streets, in the city of Baltimore, and after the car had come to a full stop the plaintiff desired to alight from said car, and proceeded to do so; but before the plaintiff could get off of the car, and while she was exercising due care and caution, the said car was negligently and prematurely started by the agents and servants of the defendant while the said plaintiff was in the act of alighting from the car, and that by such negligence and premature starting of the car the plaintiff was thrown to the ground, and thereby sustained serious and permanent injuries. The accounts given by the witnesses as to the happening of the accident are conflicting, but it is sufficient to say that, so far as the plaintiff’s case is concerned, she offered evidence tending to show the following facts : That on the morning of the accident, about the hour of eleven o’clock, she was a passenger on one of the cars of the defendant company coming east on Baltimore street; that when the car reached the corner of Baltimore and'Paca streets it stopped, and that she attempted to alight therefrom ; that she arose from her seat and caught hold of the handle-bar and stepped down on the foot-board of the car, and was in the act of getting down from the foot-board to the street, and whilst in this position the conductor rang the bell and the car started; that the sudden starting of the car broke her hold on the handle-bar and threw her into the street, and that in consequence of being thus thrown she sustained serious injuries.

The defendant offered evidence tending to prove that the car stopped at the corner of Baltimore and Paca streets; and that the plaintiff made no effort to leave the car until after it had started; that the car was in motion when she got upon the foot-board, and that she was thrown when in the act of ²⁸⁸ stepping to the ground from the foot-board of the moving car; that the car stopped at the corner of Baltimore and Paca streets and had just started when the accident occurred, and had hardly time to move off at any speed when the injury occurred; that it had gone a very short distance after it had started, one witness fixing the distance at ten feet, and another at three or four feet, and all of the defendant’s witnesses concurring in the statement that at the time the plaintiff stepped from the foot-board and was injured the car was running smoothly and very slowly. At the conclusion of the case the appellee offered three prayers which were granted by the Court, and the defendant offered five — the fourth was granted, the fifth was granted as modified by the Court — and its first, second and third prayers were refused. To the action of the Court granting the plaintiff’s prayers and in refusing its • first, second and third prayers, and in amending its fifth prayer the defendant excepted, and the verdict and judgment being against the defendant it has appealed. The bill of exceptions brings up for review only the rulings _ of the Court on the prayers.

In the argument before this Court no question was made by the counsel for the appellant as to the correctness of the ruling of the Court on the plaintiff’s prayers. We find no error in the granting of these prayers. They announced the correct principles for the guidance of the jury in fixing the defendant’s responsibility for the injury complained ■ of, and also the correct rule for estimating the damages in case the jury should find for the plaintiff. The defendant’s first and second prayers were properly refused.

The first prayer asked the Court to direct a verdict for the defendant, because there was no evidence in the case legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the second prayer asked the Court to say that the undisputed evidence in the case showed that the negligence of the plaintiff contributed to the injury of which she complained, and, therefore, the verdict must be for the defendant. ²⁸⁹ In view of the evidence offered by the plaintiff it is clear that the Court could not grant either of these prayers. It is