Champane v. La Crosse City R. Co., 121 Wis. 554, 99 NW 334; Winnipeg Electric R. Co. v. Schwartz, 49 Can. S. C. 80, 16 DomLR 681, 17 CanRCas 1, 27 WestLR 439 [aff 23 Man. 60, 9 DomLR 708, 23 West LR 688]. (2) To sustain a recovery for injuries caused an alighting passenger by suddenly increasing the speed of the car after it had slowed down. Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Rousseau, 48 Ind. A. 248, 93 NE 34, 1028; Cohen v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 141 Iowa 469, 119 NW 964; Root v. Des Moines City R. Co., 113 Iowa 675, 83 NW 904; Knuckey v. Butte Electric R. Co., 41 Mont. 314, 109 P 979; Ganley v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 7 NYS 854. (3) To sustain a finding that the starting of a car while a passenger was alighting therefrom was the proximate cause of an injury to him. Randazzo v. Broklyn Heights R. Co., 121 App. Div. 573, 106 NYS 193. (4) To show that an operator of an elevator was guilty of gross negligence in starting the car while passengers were alighting. Swan v. Boston Store of Chicago, 191 Ill. A. 84. [b] Evidence held insufficient: (1) To sustain a recovery for negligence in starting a train or car before a passenger had a reasonable opportunity to alight in safety. Storch v. Chicago City R. Co., 187 Ill. A. 22; Proctor v. Chicago City R. Co., 181 Ill. A. 635; Hanley v. Chicago City R. Co., 180 Ill. A. 397; South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. Geis, 135 Ky. 192, 123 SW 306; Gretzner v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 105 La. 266, 29 S 496; Coneton v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 212 Mass. 28, 98 NE 602; O'Neil v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 180 Mass. 576, 62 NE 983; Baldwin V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 128 Mich. 417, 87 NW 380; Daniels v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 177 Mo. A. 280, 164 SW 154; Empey v. Grand Ave. Cable Co., 45 Mo. A. 422; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Landauer, 36 Nebr. 642, 54 NW 976; Millar v. New York City R. Co., 124 App. Div. 192, 108 NYS 758; Greehy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 112 App. Div. 211, 98 NYS 274; Maurer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 110 App. Div. 900. 96 NYS 1065; Vonderahe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 109 App. Div. 28, 95 NYS 1048; Fox v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 93 App. Div. 229, 87 NYS 754; Andrews v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 63, 86 NYS 338; Black v. Second Ave. R. Co., 44 App. Div. 333, 60 NYS 631; Colvin v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. 76, 52 NYS 698; Pierce v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 21 App. Div. 427, 47 NYS 540 (holding that, where disinterested evidence shows that plaintiff, a passenger on a street car, alighted while the car in motion, after a signal by the conductor to stop, a verdict for plaintiff will be set aside, although she states that the car came to a full stop, and started while she was attempting to get off); Gunther Metropolitan St. R. Co., 45 Misc. 117, 91 NYS 589; Hart v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 28 Misc. 766, 58 NYS 1087; Connor v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 27 Misc. 541, 58 NYS 340; Ormond v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 27 Misc. 526, 58 NYS 335; Hill v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 138 NYS 106; Gunn v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 86 NYS 241; Kramer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 86 NYS 33; Sullivan v. Union R. Co., (R. I.) 69 A 923; Heltzen v. Union R. Co., 26 R. I. 576, 59 A 918; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, (Tex.) 7 SW 88; Berkley St. R. Co. v. Simpson, 106 Va. 548, 56 SE 331. (2) To sustain a recovery for injuries to person entering a train at a station to assist an invalid passenger, and injured in jumping from the train after it had started. Georgia, etc., was V. a 66 70 [§ 1453] 8. Trial- -a. Questions of Law and Fact -(1) In General—(a) General Rule.68 In an action by a passenger against a carrier for personal injuries, as in other civil cases,69 questions of law are ordinarily to be determined by the court and it is error to submit them to the jury." But issues A. 172, 64 SE 703; Garvik v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 131 Iowa 415, 108 NW 327, 117 AmSR 432; Morey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Kan. 73, 119 P 544; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Shelby, 95 Miss. 155, 48 S 403; Smith v. Delano, 179 Mo. A. 242, 166 SW 852; Neuer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 143 Mo. A. 402, 127 SW 669; Ditchfield v. Philadelphia, etc., Tract. Co., 32 Pa. Super. 531; Holly v. Jamestown, etc., Co., (R. I.) 71 A 69; Bishop v. Bishop, (R. I.) 70 A 966; Wilcox v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R. I. 292, 70 A 913; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 35 Tex. Civ. A. 257, 79 SW 1104. (2) To show that the_passenger was the aggressor. Reed V. New York, etc., R. Co., 116 App. Div. 709, 102 NYS 19. (3) To show that the force exercised on plaintiff was justified by actual or apparent danger of defendant's brakeman from an unjustified assault on him by plaintiff. Friar v. Orange, etc., R. Co., 45 Tex. Civ. A. 564, 101 SW 274. V. R. Co. v. Hutchins, 121 Ga. 317, 48 SE 939. (3) To sustain a recovery for injuries caused an alighting passenger by suddenly increasing the speed of the car or train after it had slowed down. Stevens v. Boston El. R. Co., 199 Mass. 471, 85 NE 571; Etson v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 110 Mich. 494, 68 NW 298; Miller Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 158 App. Div. 808, 144 NYS 208; Dwyer v. Auburn, etc., R. Co., 131 App. Div. 477, 115 NYS 364; Armstrong v. Portland R. Co., 52 Ór. 437, 97 P 715. [c] To justify a finding of actionable negligence by a motorman in suddenly starting his car with a jerk, so as to throw off a passenger attempting to alight, it is only necessary that the evidence affirmatively establishes circumstances from which the inference fairly arises that the accident resulted from the want of some precaution which the motorman might have taken. Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Rousseau, 48 Ind. A. 248, 93 NE 34, 1028. [d] Whether car was in motion. Where the only question in dispute was as to whether or not a street car was in motion when a passenger attempted to alight, and plaintiff's testimony that the car stopped, and as she was stepping off it started, was corroborated by other evidence, while the conductor and six passengers testified that the car was in rapid motion when she attempted to get off, a finding that the car had stopped, and started as plaintiff was getting off, was not against the clear weight of the evidence. Bartle v. Houghton County St. R. Co., 132 Mich. 290, 93 NW 620. 64. See cases infra this note. [a] Evidence held sufficient to sustain a recovery for negligence in failing to provide a safe place for setting down passengers. Teale V. Southern Pac. Co., 20 Cal. 570, 129 P 949 (Insufficient lights); Mayzels v. Chicago City R. Co., 177 111. A. 534; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 59 Ill. A. 242 [aff 162 Ill. 185, 44 NE 390] (icy platform); Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Walker, 177 Ind. 38, 97 NE 151; Henry v. Swailes, 57 Ind. A. 218, 105 NE 162; Topp v. United R., etc., Co., 99 Md. 630, 59 A 52, 1 AnnCas 912; Spangler v. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 152 Mich. 405, 116 NW 373; Hebert v. St. Paul City R. Co., 85 Minn. 341, 88 NW 996; Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. McShan, 81 Miss. 460, 33 S 223 (unlighted platform); Bass v. Concord St. R. Co., 70 N. H. 170, 46 A 1056; Miller v. International R. Co., 52 Misc. 344, 102 NYS 254; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 103 Va. 635, 49 SE 997. [b] Evidence held insufficient to sustain a recovery for negligence in failing to provide a safe place for setting down passengers. Stewart v. East St. Louis R. Co., 173 Ill. A. 477 (unsafe place in street); Ware v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 119 111. A. 456; Polland v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 112 Me. 286, 92 A 38; McClanahan v. St. Louis. etc., R. Co., 147 Mo. A. 386, 126 SW 535; Strong v. Long Island R. Co., 129 App. Div. 361, 113 NYS 828; Truesdell v. Erie R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34, 99 NYS 694; Duell v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 115 Wis. 516, 92 NW 269. 65. Garvik v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 131 Iowa 415, 108 NW 327, 117 AmSR 432; Cohen v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 115 NYS 1101; Huggard v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 158 Wis. 1, 147 NW 1020. And see cases infra this note. [a] Evidence held sufficient: (1) To sustain a recovery by a passenger for an assault by a conductor or other employee of the carrier. King v. Southern R. Co., 128 Ga. 285, 57 SE 507; Southern R. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ga. [b] Evidence held insufficient to sustain a recovery by a passenger for an assault by a conductor or other employee of the carrier. James v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 80 App. Div. 364, 80 NYS 710; Guariello v. Union R. Co., 47 Misc. 486, 94 NYS 538; Voves v. Great Northern R. Co., 26 N. D. 110, 143 NW 760, 48 LRANS 30. [c] Authority of employee.-Evidence that a passenger was assaulted by one who was acting as a brakeman is sufficient to support a finding that he was so acting by the authority of those who were authorized by the company to assign_brakemen to duty on that train. Conger v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 207, 47 NW 788. 66. Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Trussell, 122 Ark. 516, 183 SW 981; Sira v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 127, 21 SW 905, 37 AmSR 386; Barlick v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 41 Pa. Super. 87. And see cases infra this note. (1) [a] Evidence held sufficient: To sustain a recovery for injuries caused by the disorderly conduct of fellow passengers. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Rudy, 118 Md. 42, 84 A 241. (2) To show negligence on the part of the 'trainmen in failing to protect a passenger from assault by a fellow passenger. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Bradley, 99 Ark. 346, 138 SW 478; Starr v. Chicago, etc., Co., 156 Iowa 311, 136 NW 524; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, (Tex. Civ. A.) 146 SW 355; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Birchfield, 105 Va. 809, 54 SE 879; Kline v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 146 Wis. 134, 131 NW 427. AnnCas1912C 276 and note. [b] Evidence held insufficient to show that defendant's employees knew plaintiff was about to be assaulted or illegally searched. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 S 889. 67. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Harris, 115 Tenn. 501, 91 SW 211, 5 LRA NS 779 (evidence sufficient); St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Fussell, (Tex. Civ. A.) 97 SW 332. 68. Amount of supra § 1399. Contributory negligence see infra §§ 1520-1523. 69. 1511]. damages see See generally Trial [38 Cyc 70. Ind. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Beverly, 43 Ind. A. 105, 84 NE 558, 85 NE 721. Md.-Baltimore, etc.. R. Co. V. Carr, 71 Md. 135, 17 A 1052. Mich.-Cottrell v. Michigan United Tract. Co., 184 Mich. 221, 150 NW 857. Pa.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. 339, 98 AmD 229; Pennsyl of fact are ordinarily to be determined by the jury under proper instructions from the court." 71 [§ 1454] (b) As Determined by the Evidence. Where there is sufficient evidence on which the jury might justifiably find the existence or the nonexistence of material facts in issue, and the evi vania R. Co. v. Allen, 53 Pa. 276. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Head, (A.) 15 SW 504. Wis.-Abbot v. Tolliver, 71 Wis. 64, 35 NW 622. [a] Construction of contract-In an action for the death of an express messenger, due to negligence of defendant over whose lines the express company operated. whether decedent's contract with the express company contemplated services as an express messenger was a question of law, and not of fact. Cottrell Michigan United Tract. Co., 184 Mich. 221, 150 NW 857. V. [b] Rule for estimating damages. -The rule by which damages are to be estimated is, as a general principle, a question of law to be decided by the court, that is to say, the court must decide, and instruct the jury in respect to what elements and within what limits damages may be estimated in the particular action. An instruction that leaves the whole question of damages to the discretion of the jury without any rule to guide them is erroneous. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Carr, 71 Md. 135, 17 A 1052; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Books, 57 Pa. 339, 98 AmD 229; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Allen, 53 Pa. 276; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Head, (Tex. A.) 15 SW 504; Abbot V. Tolliver, 71 Wis. 64, 36 NW 622. 71. Kan. James v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 81 Kan. 23, 105 P 40. Ky.-Samuels v. Louisville R. Co., 151 Ky. 90, 151 SW 37. N. Y.-Duffy v. Long Island R. Co., 167 App. Div. 626, 153 NYS 48. Okl.-Lane v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 19 Okl. 324, 91 P 883. S. C.-Zemp V. Wilmington, etc., R. Co., 43 S. C. L. 84, 64 AmD 763. [a] Whether rules were posted warning passengers not to ride in baggage cars is a question for the jury and not for the court. Lane v. Choctaw etc., R. Co., 19 Okl. 324, 91 P 883. 72. U. S.-Washington City, etc., R. Co. v. Svedborg, 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935 [aff 20 App. (D. C.) 543]; Central Vermont R. Co. v. Cauble, 228 Fed. 876, 143 CCA 274; Lee v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 220 Fed. 863, 136 CCA 493; Goldstein v. Scranton R. Co., 209 Fed. 145, 126 CCA 93; Mahoning Valley R. Co. v. O'Hara, 196 Fed. 945, 116 CCA 495; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Wainwright, 152 Fed. 624, 82 CCA 16. Cal-Froeming v. Stockton Electric R. Co., 171 Cal. 401, 153 P 712. Del.-MacFeat v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 21 Del. 52, 62 A 898. Ind.-Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Wall, 54 Ind. A. 43, 101 NE 680; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Callahan, 40 Ind: A. 223, 81 NE 670. Iowa. Sandquist v. Ft. Dodge, etc., R. Co., 159 Iowa 194, 140 NW 394. Ky.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Lauhorn, 159 Ky. 325, 167 SW 132 (whether the station was a flag station or one at which the train regularly stopped); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Grimes, 150 Ky. 219, 150 SW 346; Louisville R. Co. v. Steubing, 143 Ky. 364, 136 SW 634; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gunterman, 135 Ky. 438, 122 SW 514; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Deason, 96 SW 1115, 29 KyL 1259; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, 71 SW 516, 24 KyL 1402. Mass.-O'Day v. Boston El. R. Co., 218 Mass. 515, 106 NE 144; Dewey v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 599, 105 NE 366; Holliday v. Boston El. R. Co.. 214 Mass. 424. 101 NE 1073; Lauchtamacher v. Boston El. R. Co, 214 Mass. 103. 100 NE 1068; Hebblethwaite v. Old Colony St. R. Co., dence is conflicting or of such a character that different conclusions as to such facts might be reasonably drawn therefrom,72 the issues should be submitted to the jury for determination, as the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for determination by the jury;73 and in 192 Mass. 295, 78 NE 477; Farnon v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 180 Mass. 212, 62 NE 254. Mich.-Chisholm v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 187 Mich. 214, 153 NW 818; Vultee v. Saginaw-Bay City R. Co., 186 Mich. 523, 152 NW 980; Dorrance v. Michigan United R. Co., 175 Mich. 198, 141 NW 697, AnnCas1915A 763; Van Orman v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 152 Mich. 185, 115 NW 968. Minn. Barnett v. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co., 123 Minn. 153, 143 NW 263, 48 LRANS 262; Campbell v. Duluth. etc., R. Co., 107 Minn. 358, 120 NW 375, 22 LRANS 190. Water Power Co., 62 Wash. 619, 114 [a] Evidence held sufficient to re- Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Bishop, 108 Miss. 166, 66 S 425. Mo.-Hatchett v. St. Louis United R. Co., 175 SW 878; Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 SW 91; Cobb v. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 SW 310; Thomure v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 191 Mo. A. 640. 177 SW 708; Adams v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 174 Mo. A. 5, 160 SW 38; Vessels v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 708, 108 SW 578; Bussell v. Quincy, etc., R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 441, 102 SW 613; Bond Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 122 Mo. A. 207, 99 SW 30; Green v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 121 Mo. A. 720, 97 SW 646. Mont. Knuckey v. Butte Electric R. Co., 45 Mont. 106, 122 P 280. N. J.-Rivers v. Pennsylvania R. [c] Plaintiff's evidence of subThe stantial character.-(1) court need not direct the jury to find for a street railroad company, in an action to recover damages for the injuries sustained by a passenger in Co., 83 N. J. L. 513, 83 A 883 [rev alighting from one of its cars, where 80 N. J. L. 217, 76 A 455]. N. Y.-Middleton v. Whitridge, 213 N. Y. 499, 108 NE 192 [rev 156 App. Div. 154, 141 NYS 104]; Reschke v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 155 App. Div. 48, 139 NYS 555 [aff 211 N. Y. 602 mem, 105 NE 1097 mem]; Johnson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 133 App. Div. 252, 117 NYS 360; Goller V. Fonda, etc., R. Co., 110 App. Div. 620, Ninth 96 NYS 483; Mettlestadt v. Ave. R. Co., 27 N. Y. Super. 377; Hourney v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 7 NYS 602 [aff 130 N. Y. 641 mem, 29 NE 1033 mem]; McSwyny v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 7 NYS 456. N. C.-Smith v. North Carolina R. Co., 147 N. C. 448, 61 SE 266, 17 LRA NS 179; Briggs v. Durham Tract. Co., 147 N. C. 389, 61 SE 373; Wallace v. Western North Carolina R. Co.. 101 N. C. 454, 8 SE 166. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Fitts, 40 Okl. 685, 140 P 144, LRA 1916C 348. Or.-Devroe v. Portland R., etc., Co., 64 Or. 547, 131 P 304. Pa.-Geiger v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 247 Pa. 287, 93 A 342; Warren V. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 243 Pa. 15, 89 A 828; Thomas v. Altoona, etc., Electric R. Co., 236 Pa. 365, 81 A 846; Jones v. Pennsylvania Co., 60 Pa. Super. 436; Fleming v. Southern Pa. Tract. Co., 59 Pa. Super. 505; Becker v. Buffalo, etc., Tract. Co., 52 Pa. Super. 93. S. C-Jernigan v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 102 S. C. 62, 86 SE 198; Cunningham v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 96 S. C. 456, 81 SE 150; Singletary v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 88 S. C. 565, 71 SE 57; Talbert v. Charleston. etc., R. Co., 72 S. C. 137, 51 SE 564; Cooper v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 61 S. C. 345, 39 SE 543. R. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern Co. v. Johnson, 100 Tex. 237, 97 SW 1039; Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (Civ. A.) 155 SW 361; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Trigo. 49 Tex. Civ. A. 523, 108 SW 1193; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 103 SW 239; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Trigo, (Civ. A.) 101 SW 254; Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. Jones, 38 Tex. Civ. A. 129, 85 SW 37. Wash.-Johnson V. Washington to there was evidence on behalf of plaintiff of a substantial character, bearing on the general issue as the carrier's negligence. Washington City, etc., R. Co. v. Svedborg, 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935 [aff 20 App. (D. C.) 543]. (2) The case is one for the jury where there is substantial evidence that plaintiff was injured and sufficient evidence to support a verdict in his favor, although there is evidence to the contrary. Lee v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 220 Fed. 863, 136 CCA 493. [d] Construction of engineer's orders. Where orders given to the engineer of a train, when read in connection with the rules and usages of the company, are ambiguous, the question whether the engineer placed a proper construction on them is one of fact in an action for injuries to a passenger. Willard v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 108 Minn. 304, 122 NW 169. [e] Temporary violation of rule of carrier. Although a rule of an elevated railroad company which forbids passengers to stand between the seats except in emergencies exists, the circumstances may be such as to render immediate enforcement of the rule so dangerous as to make it a question for the jury whether its temporary violation should be allowed. Dewey v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 599, 105 NE 366. [f] Plaintiff's witness testifying adversely to him-On conflicting evidence, in an action for the wrongful death of a street car passenger, the question of recovery is for the jury, although one of plaintiff's witnesses on cross-examination testifies adversely to him on matters outFroemside the direct examination. ing v. Stockton Electric R. Co., 171 Cal. 401, 153 P 712. 73. Lusby V. R. Co., Atchison, etc., 41 Fed. 181; Herr v. Chicago. etc., R. Co., 189 Ill. A. 506; Hanes v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 207; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fitts. 40 Okl. 685, 140 P 144, LRA 1916C 348. See also Trial [38 Cyc 1516 et seq]. [a] Thus, where plaintiff testifies that the injury for which he is suing occurred as defendant's train was ap But such a case it is error for the court to take the 74. U. S.-Ralph v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 216 Fed. 744, 132 CCA 654; Patterson v. Jacksonville Tract. Co., 213 Fed. 289, 130 CCA 13. D. C.-Blatcher v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 31 App. 385. Ill. Chicago City R. Co. v. Henry, 218 Ill. 92, 75 NE 758. Kan.-Hanson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 83 Kan. 553, 112 P 152, 31 LRA NS 624. Me.-Berry v. Atlantic R. Co., 109 Miss.-Hill v. Jackson Light, etc., S. C.-McJimpsey v. Carolina Div. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. McNatt, (Civ. A.) 166 SW 89. [a] Applications of rule.-(1) Where a street car passenger's testimony is contradictory as to whether the accident occurred as alleged or in some other way, it is a question for the jury which version is correct, and the direction of a verdict for defendant on the ground of variance is improper. Bobbitt v St. Louis United R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 424, 153 SW 70. (2) Where plaintiff's testimony as to the manner in which he was injured while attempting to board a street car is improbable, and defendant's evidence tends to show that he was injured on a different day and in an entirely different manner, it is error to take the case from the jury. Chicago City R. Co. v. Henry, 218 Ill. 92, 75 NE 758. (3) Where plaintiff establishes the fact that she was injured while a passenger on defendant's car and while exercising due care, it devolves on defendant to show that the injury was unavoidable by human foresight, and a verdict should not be directed for the failure of plaintiff to show that defendant owned and operated the car which collided with the one on which plaintiff was riding. Patterson v. Jacksonville Tract. Co., 213 Fed. 289, 130 CCA 13. 75. Konieczny v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 164 Mich. 66, 128 NW 1096. [a] Effect of employee having drunk liquor.-Where, in an action against a railroad for the death of a passenger through the alleged negligence of defendant's engineer in running his train into a forest fire, there was no evidence that the engineer's judgment was in any way affected by liquor, or that it had anything to do with his conduct or ability intelligently to comprehend his dangers, the court properly refused to submit the question of the effect on him and his crew of having drunk liquor. Konieczny v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 164 Mich. 66, 128 NW 1096. 76. U. S.-Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Ely, 208 Fed. 873, 126 CCA 31; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCaffrey, 149 Fed. 404, 79 CCA 224. Mass.-Hooper V. Bay State St. R. Co., 218 Mass. 251, 105 NE 892; Winship v. New York, etc., R. Co., 170 Mass. 464, 49 NE 647. Minn.-Powers v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Minn. 319, 121 NW 897. .78 and the court should dispose of it without the intervention of a jury, as by dismissal or nonsuit, by sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, or by directing a verdict.79 [§ 1455] (2) Existence of Relation of Carrier and Passenger. It is ordinarily a question for the jury as to whether the relation of carrier and passenger existed between defendant and the person injured, at the time of the injury,80 unless the evidence is insufficient to be submitted, or is undisputed and Oh.-Henry v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Pa. Mott v. Pennsylvania R. Co., Tex.-San Antonio Tract. Co. V. 77. Southern R. Co. v. Norwood, 186 79. U. S.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. N. J.-Keeney v. Delaware, etc., R. N. Y.-Daly v. New Jersey Central 80. U. S.-Northern Pac. R. Co. Ala. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Bell, 187 Ala. 541, 65 S 835; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Glascow, 179 Ala. 251, 60 S 103; Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Bates, 155 Ala. 347, 46 S 776; Ball v. Mobile Light, etc., Co., 146 Ala. 309, 39 S 584, 119 AmSR 32, 9 AnnCas 962. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Coy, 168 SW 1106; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Laurence, 106 Ark. 544, 153 SW 799. Ill-Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Rosenthal, 217 Ill. 458, 75 NE 578 [aff 118 111. A. 278]; Chicago Terminal Transfer R. Co. v. Gruss, 200 Ill. 195, 65 NE 693 [aff 102 I. A. 439]; Chicago Terminal Transfer Co. v. Kotoski, 199 111. 383, 65 NE 350 [aff 101 Ill. A. 300]; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 123 III. 162, 14 NE 197, 5 AmSR 510; Carroll v. Chicago City R. Co., 180 Ill. A. 309; Rice v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 22 Ill. A. 643. Ind.- Indianapolis Southern R. Co. v. Tucker, 51 Ind. A. 480, 98 NE 431. Iowa. Ramm v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 94 Iowa 296, 62 NW 751 (person riding on freight train). Mass.-Carter v. Boston, etc., St. Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Bishop, Mo.-Anderson v. Missouri Pac. R. N. J.-Atlantic City R. Co. v. Kie- N. Y.-Kramer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 114 App. Div. 804, 100 NYS 276 [rev on other grounds 190 N. Y. 310, 83 NE 351; West v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 55 App. Div. 464, 67 NYS 104 (riding on freight train); Sexton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 App. Div. 26, 57 NYS 577; O'Dell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 18 App. Div. 12, 45 NYS 464 [aff 162 N. Y. 625 mem, 57 NE 1119 mem]. Pa.-Geiger v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 247 Pa. 287, 93 A 342; Goehring_v. Beaver Valley Tract. Co., 222 Pa. 600, 72 A 259 (private policeman on car at request of conductor); Wilkes v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 216 Pa. 355, 65 A 787. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Huff, 98 Tex. 110. 81 SW 525 [rev (Civ. A.) 78 SW 249] (riding on freight train under agreement with brakeman); Mills v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 94 Tex. 242, 59 SW 874, 55 LRA 497 [rev (Civ. A.) 57 SW 291]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sears, (Civ. A.) 130 SW 1019; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Fowler, (Civ. A.) 93 SW 484. Va.-Southern R. Co. v. Grubbs, 115 Va. 876, 80 SE 749. Sound Wash.-Dunn V. Puget Tract, etc., Co., 89 Wash. 36, 153 P 1059; Conner v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 56 Wash. 310, 105 P 634. 134 AmSR 1110, 25 LRANS 930; Bugge v. Seattle Electric Co., 54 Wash. 483, 103 P 824; Harris v. Puget Sound Electric R. Co., 52 Wash. 298, 299, 100 P 841. W. Va.-Layne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 68 W. Va. 213, 69 SE 700, 31 LRANS 414. Wis. Ferguson v. Truax, 136 Wis. 637, 118 NW 251. Eng. Great Northern R. Co. V. Harrison, 10 Exch. 376, 156 Reprint 489 (question of fraudulent intent). [a] Whether relation had arisen.(1) Proof that plaintiff, with a bona fide intention of becoming a passenger, went to the flag station of defendant railroad company makes it a question for the jury whether that relation arose. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Glascow, 179 Ala. 251, 60 S 103. (2) Where it appeared that plaintiff's intestate went to the city daily, and that he stepped on the platform of defendant's train after having stated that he intended to take the train for the city, when he was killed by a collision, it was a question for the jury whether he was a passenger, although there was no proof that he had a ticket or the money to pay for one. Inness v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 433, 47 NE 193. [b] Whether relation had terminated. (1) Whether a passenger, proceeding to leave the premises of the carrier, returned thereto in good faith, and the purpose of his return as bearing on the question as to whether the relation of carrier and passenger had terminated, are questions of fact for the jury, in an action by the passenger against the carrier for an assault on him on his return to the premises by an agent of the carrier. Layne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 68 W. Va. 213, 69 SE 700, 31 LRANS 414. (2) Whether a passenger alighting in the usual place near a station, and who was struck by the train while on the only practicable route to the station, was entitled to the care due a passenger or merely to that due a trespasser, is a question for the jury, where the evidence is conflicting as to whether he was going to the station for the purpose of receiving a telegram, or was merely loitering on the tracks. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Coggins, 88 Fed. 455, 32 CCA 1. (3) Where a passenger is necessarily hindered or delayed in leaving the carrier's premises, the question whether he has failed to depart within a reasonable time, so as to terminate the relation of carrier and passenger, is one of fact for the jury. Layne v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., [ 1456] (3) Negligence in General.82 In accordance with the above rules,83 the question of the carrier's negligence with respect to the injury sustained by the passenger is one of fact for the jury and should be submitted to them, where there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury, and it is conflicting or such that different conclusions reasonably might be drawn therefrom;84 and in such case it is error for the court to dispose of such question without the 208; Louisville R. Co. v. Mitchell, 138 Ky. 190, 127 SW 770; Palmer Transfer Co. v. Smith, 127 Ky. 319, 125 SW 725, 136 AmSR 295, 29 LRANS 321. supra. (4) Whether a person who 84. U. S.-New York, etc., R. Co. | Ky. 694, 145 SW 370, AnnCas1913D had alighted from a standing train at a station and was crossing the tracks by a planked way provided by the company after the train had moved out was still a passenger entitled to cross without looking or listening is a question of fact for the jury, where reasonable men may differ as to whether he was proceeding to a place of safety within a reasonable time after he had alighted from the train. Atlantic City R. Co. v. Kiefer, 75 N. J. L. 54, 66 A 930. or [c] Employee with pass.-Whether or not a pass held by a street railroad employee was a gratuity was issued as one of the terms of his employment, thereby making him a passenger for hire, is a question for the jury. Dugan v. Blue Hill St. R. Co., 193 Mass, 431, 79 NE 748. [d] Place to ride.-Where a shipper of goods and of live stock accompanied them and was entitled to ride as a passenger, the question as to whether he should ride in the freight car or in the caboose, in the absence of a contract provision, is for the jury. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 178 Ind. 11, 97 NE 145. 98 NE 625. [e] On elevator.-Whether plaintiff, injured while a passenger on an elevator, was at the time on his way to visit a doctor in the building, and whether he had prior thereto been forbidden by agents of the proprietor of the elevator to ride thereon, has been held a question for the jury. Ferguson v. Truax, 136 Wis. 637, 118 NW 251. 81. U. S.-Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Ely, 208 Fed. 873, 126 CCA 31. İll. O'Donnell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 106 Ill. A. 287. Nebr.-Painter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 93 Nebr. 419, 140 NW 787. Or.-Richardson V. Portland R., etc., Co., 70 Or. 330, 141 P 749. Utah. Schuyler v. Southern Pac. Co., 37 Utah 581, 109 P 458 [reh den 37 Utah 612, 109 P 1025]. Wis.-McBride v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 148 Wis. 17, 133 NW 1111. [a] Evidence held insufficient: (1) To require the submission to the jury of the question whether plaintiff lost her status as a passenger by a fraudulent attempt and intent to evade payment of fare. Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Ely, 208 Fed. 873, 126 CCA 31. (2) To show that the deceased was a passenger on defendant's car, in an action against a railroad company for the wrongful death of a railroad mail clerk, and hence a direction of a verdict for defendant was proper. Gemmill v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 186 Ill. A. 124. [b] Knowledge that passenger was riding on free pass.-Where plaintiff's decedent, an employee of defendant carrier, having a free pass, entered defendant's train, and was received as a passenger and permitted to ride, and there was no evidence that the employees of the train did not know that decedent was riding on a free pass, or that they were deceived as to his status on the train, it is not error to fail to submit to the jury the question as whether defendant's trainmen knew that decedent was riding on a free pass while not on duty. Schuyler v. Southern Pac. Co., 37 Utah 581, 109 P 458 [reh den 37 Utah 612, 109 P 1025]. 82. See generally Negligence [29 Cyc 627 et seq]. to Contributory negligence see infra §§ 1520-1523. 83. See supra §§ 1453, 1454. V. Kilby, 233 Fed. 252, 147 CCA 258; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Eddy, 228 Fed. 643, 143 CCA 165; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Clinton, 224 Fed. 896, 140 CCA 340; Murphy v. Milford, etc., St. R. Co., 210 Fed. 137, 126 CCA 656; Southern Pac. Co. v. Ward, 208 Fed. 385, 125 CCA 607; Harmon v. Flintham, 196 Fed. 635, 116 CCA 309; Norfolk, etc., Terminal Co. v. Rotolo, 191 Fed. 4, 112 CCA 583; O'Field v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 189 Fed. 721, 111 CCA 259; Marbury v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 176 Fed. 9, 99 CCA 483; North Jersey St. R. Co. v. Purdy, 142 Fed. 955, 74 CCA 125; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Young, 90 Fed. 709, 33 CCA 251 (spark from passing engine striking passenger on station platform in the eye); Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Ashley, 67 Fed. 209, 14 CCA 368; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. V. Schneider, 60 Fed. 210, 8 CCA 571. Ala. Southern R. Co. v. Hayes, 69 S 641; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Storrs, 169 Ala. 361, 53 S 746; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Pritchett, 161 Ala. 480, 49 S 782; Carleton v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 155 Ala. 326, 46 S 495, 16 AnnCas 445. Ark.-St. Louis, R. etc.. Co. Fuqua, 114 Ark. 112, 169 SW 786; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. Jackson, 93 Ark. 119, 124 SW 241. V. V. Fla.-Pensacola Electric Co. V. Alexander, 58 Fla. 337, 50 S 673. Ga. Bailey v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 144 Ga. 139, 86 SE 326; Columbus R. Co. v. Asbell, 133 Ga. 573, 66 SE 902; McDonald v. Savannah Electric Co., 120 Ga. 49, 47 SE 547 (allowing guard rail to fall on passenger's hand); Central of Georgia R. Co. v. McKenney, 116 Ga. 13, 42 SE 229; Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Rudulph, 113 Ga. 143, 38 SE 328; Byrd v. Atlanta Nat. Bank. 16 Ga. 7. 84 SE 219; Macon R., etc., Co. v. Castopulon, 11 Ga. A. 242, 75 SE 15; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Plunkett, Ga. A. 684, 65 SE 695. Ill.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169, 50 NE 713 [aff 68 Ill. A. 635]; Carroll v. Chicago City R. Co., 180 Ill. A. 309; Kloepher v. Osborne, 177 Ill. A. 384; Kelly v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 175 Ill. A. 196; Shaw v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 173 Ill. A. 107. Ind. Vincennes Tract. Co. v. Curry, 59 Ind. A. 683, 109 NE 62; Romine v. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 24 Ind. A. 230, 56 NE 245 (catching passenger's finger in door). Iowa. Weber v. Chicago, etc.,. R. Co., 151 NW 852; Newman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 154 Iowa 72, 134 NW 585; Burger v. Omaha, etc.. R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343. Kan. Kansas City El. R. Co. v. Groff, 77 Kan. 551, 95 P 394; Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Warren, 74 Kan. 244. 86 P 656, 89 P 656. Ky-Louisville R. Co. v. Frey, 166 Ky. 24, 178 SW 1137; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Rowell. 151 Ky. 313. 151 SW 950; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 150 Ky. 692, 150 SW 849; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 147 Mass. Harrington V. Boston El. R. Co., 221 Mass. 299, 108 NE 943; Wheeler v. Boston El. R. Co., 220 Mass. 298, 107 NE 938; Wakeley v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 488, 105 NE 436; Buckley v. Boston El. R. Co., 215 Mass. 50, 102 NE 75; Luddy v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 210 Mass. 293, 96 NE 675; Eldredge v. Boston El. R. Co., 203 Mass. 582, 89 NE 1041; Powers v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 201 Mass. 66, 87 NE 192; Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849; Magee v. New York, etc., R. Co., 195 Mass. 111, 89 NE 689; Black v. New York, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 448, 79 NE 797, 7 LRANS 148, 9 AnnCas 485. Mich. Richardson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 176 Mich. 413, 142 NW 832; Hennessy v. Muskegon Tract., etc.. Co., 135 Mich. 29, 97 NW 36; Cross v. Detroit Citizens' St. R. Co., 120 Mich. 137, 79 NW 11; Keating v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 104 Mich. 418, 62 NW 575. Minn.-Lacey V. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 118 Minn. 301, 136 NW 878; Gaffney v. St. Paul City R. Co., 81 Minn. 459, 84 NW 304. Mo.-Schloemer v. St. Louis Transit Co., 204 Mo. 99, 102 SW 565; Smith v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 119 Mo. 246, 23 SW 784; Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 180 SW 408; Donovan v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 649, 138 SW 679; Ingles v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 129 SW 493; Laub v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Mo. A. 488, 91 SW 550. Nebr.-Kadner v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 97 Nebr. 678, 151 NW 169; Coffey v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 79 Nebr. 286, 112 NW 589; McCarty v. Lincoln Tract. Co., 76 Nebr. 819, 107 NW 1021; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Troyer, 70 Nebr. 293, 103 NW 680, 70 Nebr. 287, 97 NW 308; Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Crow, 47 Nebr. 84, 66 NW 21. N. J.-Leenig v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 86 N. J. L. 691, 93 A 93; Trussell v. Morris County Tract. Co., 79 N. J. L. 533, 77 A 535, 30 LRANS 351; Brower v. New Jersey Public Service Corp., 74 N. J. L. 193, 64 A 1052; Gottlob v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 305, 62 A 1003. N. Y.-Wolfkiel v. Sixth Ave. R. Co.. 38 N. Y. 49; Friedel v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 150 App. Div. 304, 135 NYS 3; France V. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 118 App. Div. 550, 102 NYS 991 [aff 193 N. Y. 637 mem, 86 NE 1124 mem]; Wood v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co.. 109 App. Div. 770, 96 NYS 419; Kleffmann v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 104 App. Div. 416, 93 NYS 741, 16 NYAnnCas 334; Berry v. Utica Belt Line St. R. Co., 76 App. Div. 490, 78 NYS 542; Webster v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 40 Hun 161 [aff 115 N. Y. 112, 21 NE 725]; Corcoran v. New York El. R. Co., 19 Hun 368; Weiller v. New York City R. Co., 51 Misc. 668, 100 NYS 1011; Boland v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 138 NYS 1099; Catalanotto V. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 7 NYS 628. N. C.-Barnes v. Southern R. Co., 168 N. C. 667, 84 SE 1030. N. D. -Hall v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 16 N. D. 60, 111 NW 609, 14 Ann Cas 960. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Walker, 31 Okl. 494, 122 P 492. Pa. Snowden V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 236 Pa. 52, 84 A 591; Tucker v. Pittsburg. etc., R. Co., 227 Pa. 66, 75 A 991; Thomas v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 218 Pa. 219, 67 A 207; Brooks v. Phil. or dismissal, or by directing a verdict for defendant.88 Where a presumption of negligence exists against a carrier in case of an injury to a passenger, it is primarily for the jury to determine whether or not the carrier has met and relieved itself of the burden of rebutting such presumption. 89 [§ 1457] (4) Care as to Children and Others under Disability. Whether the carrier exercised proper care with respect to a child,90 or a passenger who by reason of intoxication,91 sickness, or other Mass.-Ahern v. Boston El. R. Co., | R. Co., 154 P 912. 210 Mass. 506, 97 NE 72. intervention of the jury, as by giving an affirmative Tex.-Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. McDonald, (Civ. A.) 160 SW 984; Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Wilson, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 565; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Maxwell, (Civ. A.) 130 SW 722; Lewis v. Texas, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 124 SW 1006; International, etc., R. Co. v. Doolan, 56 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 120 SW 1118; Northern Texas Tract. Co. v. Moberly, (Civ. A.) 109 SW 483; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Neely, 45 Tex. Civ. A. 611, 101 SW 481; Peck v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 91 SW 323. Wash.-Davis v. Burke, 90 Wash. 495, 156 P 525; Harkins v. Seattle Electric Co., 53 Wash. 184, 101 P 836; Pate v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 52 Wash. 166, 100 P 324; Plattor v. Seattle Electric Co., 44 Wash. 408, 87 P 489. Wis.-Hewitt v. Southern Wisconsin R. Co., 159 Wis. 309, 150 NW 502; Karr v. Milwaukee Light, etc., Co., 132 Wis. 662, 113 NW 62, 122 AmSR 1017, 13 LRANS 283. [a] Where plaintiff's evidence makes out a prima facie case (1) on the question of defendant's negligence, it is sufficient to require the submission of such question to the jury. Black v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 162 Mo. A. 90, 144 SW 131; Sanson v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 239 Pa. 505, 86 A 1069. (2) Where there is evidence tending to show negligence on the part of defendant, although it is not shown to be the proximate cause of the injury to the passenger on its train, the presumption of negligence arising from the fact of the injury is sufficient to take the case to the jury, with the other testimony. Doolittle v. Southern R. Co., 62 S. C. 130, 40 SE 133. [b] Vicious dog tied in station.Where a person was bitten by a vicious dog fastened in defendant's railroad station, it is a question for the jury. under all the circumstances, whether defendant was guilty of negligence in placing him where he was tied; and they are to determine the effect to be given to evidence of notice or of absence of notice of his viciousness. Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. O'Brien, 18 Tex. Civ. A. 690, 46 SW 389. 85. Ala.-Kansas City, etc.. R. Co. v. Matthews, 142 Ala. 298. 39 S 207. Ga.-Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. v. Andrews, 140 Ga. 254, 78 SE 925, AnnCas1914D 165; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. McKenney, 116 Ga. 13, 42 SE 229: Holleman V. Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co., 12 Ga. A. 755, 78 SE 428 (error to grant nonsuit). Kan. Hanson v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 83 Kan. 553, 112 P 152, 31 LRA NS 624. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. Shivers, 101 Md. 391, 61 A 618. N. Y.-Fay v. Metropolitan St. R. Pa.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mac- [a] The fact that the carrier ad- 86. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Conn. Stebel v. Connecticut Co., Ill. Smaoska v. Chicago City R. Iowa.-Oaks v. Chicago, etc., R. Mass.-Lanci v. Boston El. R. Co., Mich. Davis v. Saginaw-Bay City Mo.-Woas V. St. Louis Transit N. H-Boucher v. Boston, etc., R. N. Y.-Ricciardell Pa.-Levin V. Philadelphia. etc., 87. Sloan v. Little Rock R., etc., 88. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Mass.-Niland V. Boston El. R. Mich.-Ruscyk v. Detroit United N. Y.-Hayes v. Forty-Second St., Oh.-Coursel V. Cincinnati, etc., Alta. Beck v. Canadian Northern Ont.-Autaya v. Wabash R. Co.,' 89. Cal.-Lauder V. Currier, 3 Fla. Pensacola Electric R. Co. v. Ga. Atkinson v. Brantley, 15 Ga. Ill. Chicago City R. Co. v. Pural, Iowa. Weber v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 151 NW 852; Dorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 154 Iowa 140, 134 NW 855. Kan. Metropolitan St. R. Co. V. Mo.-Wolven v. Springfield Tract. 92 Nev. Sherman V. Southern Pac. Co., 33 Nev. 385, 111 P 416, 115 P 909, AnnCas1914A 287. Okl.-Midland Valley R. Co. V. Hilliard, 148 P 1001. Pa.-O'Conner v. Scranton Tract. Co., 180 Pa. 444, 36 A 866; Spear v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 119 Pa. 61, 12 A 824; Clark v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 24 Pa. Super. 609. R. I.-Simone V. Rhode Island Co., 28 R. I. 186, 66 A 202, 9 LRANS 740. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Sandlin, 57 Tex. Civ. A. 151, 122 SW 60. Va.-Washington-Virginia R. Co. v. Bouknight, 103 Va. 696, 75 SE 1032, AnnCas1913E 546. Wash.-Firebaugh v. Seattle Electric Co., 40 Wash. 658, 82 P 995, 111 AmSR 990, 2 LRANS 836. [a] Where the carrier's evidence tends to rebut the presumption of negligence arising from a derailment, its utmost effect, in view of Rev. Codes § 8028 subd 2, is to raise a question for the jury. Freeman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Mont.) 154 P 912. 90. Kambour v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A 624, 45 LRANS 1188; Parker v. Washington Electric St. R. Co., 207 Pa. 438, 56 A 1001 (permitting seven-year-old boy to ride on the front platform); Sanford v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 153 Pa. 300, 25 A 833; Martin v. Southern R. Co., 77 S. C. 370, 58 SE 3, 122 AmSR 574; Northern Texas Tract. Co. v. Roye, 38 Tex. Civ. A. 601, 86 SW 621. a [a] For example, (1) it is question for the jury whether a carrier should have prevented a boy fourteen years old from jumping from a moving train where it knew that he was in the habit of jumping every morning at a crossing near a school. Kambour v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A 624. 45 LRANS 1188. (2) Where a child riding on the platform of a street car is of such tender years as not to be chargeable with negligence, and there is some evidence, although disputed, that the conductor approached him for fare in a manner calculated to frighten him, so that he jumped and was injured, the case is for the jury. Sandford v. Hestonville, etc., R. Co., 153 Pa. 300, 25 A 833. 91. Price v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Ark. 479, 88 SW 575, 112 Am SR 79; Wheeler v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 A 103. 54 LRA 955; Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 127 SW 294; Benson v. Tacoma R., etc., Co., 51 Wash. 216, 98 P 605, 130 AmSR 1096. [a] Effect of passenger's intoxication on him.-(1) Whether a passenger's drunkenness so affected him as to render him incapable of appreciating his danger or of caring for himself, although he was able to sing, talk, and dance about, is one of fact, and not of law. Wheeler v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 A 103, 54 LRA 955. (2) A passenger, so intoxicated as to cause him to talk unintelligibly and to stagger as he walked, is not, as a matter of law, capable of taking care of himself and of appreciating the danger of going on the platform of an unvestibuled car while the train is running at a high speed. Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 127 SW 294. 92. Nashville. etc.. R. Co. V. Blackmon, 7 Ala. A. 530, 61 S 468; Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Parry, 67 |