infirmity or disability was unable to care for himself, is ordinarily a question for the jury. 93 94 [§ 1458] (5) Acts or Omissions of Carrier's Employees in General. Except where the evidence is insufficient to be submitted, or is clear and undisputed, it is generally a question for the jury as to whether the acts or omissions which caused the injury were the acts or omissions of an employee of the carrier, 95 whether he was at the time acting within the scope of his employment96 and whether the acts or omissions constituted negligence,97 or whether they amounted to gross negligence, malice, wantonness, or recklessness, authorizing punitive or Kan. 515, 73 P 105; Brice v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 216, 67 SE 243, 27 LRANS 768. 93. Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Derry, 47 Colo. 584, 108 P 172, 27 LRANS 761 (blind passenger). Ga. Atkinson v. Brantley, 15 Ga. A. 129, 82 SE 773 (pregnant passenger). Iowa.-Mitchell V. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 NW 43 (crippled passenger). Ky.-Dawson V. R. Co., 4 KyL 731. Louisville, etc., Mass.-Yancy v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 162, 91 NE 202, 137 Am SR 431, 26 LRANS 1217. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Dobyns, 157 P 735. Tex. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dill, (Civ. A.) 40 SW 347 (blind passenger). 94. Garvik v. Burlington, etc., R. Co.. 124 Iowa 691, 100 NW 498; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 612, 40 SW 846. [a] Employment admitted.Where, in an action against a carrier for assault alleged to have been committed by defendant's brakeman, it was admitted that the person charged with the assault was in defendant's employ as a brakeman at the time of the assault, it was error for the court to submit such question to the jury. Garvik v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 124 Iowa 691, 100 NW 498. [b] No evidence of employment. -Where a passenger was injured in jumping from a train at a place where there was no platform, at the instance of a person on the train, and there was no testimony that such person was dressed in the uniform in which the employees of the company were dressed, or that he was an employee of the company, it was error to submit the question of his service to the jury. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 612, 40 SW 846. 95. Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Barber, 2 Ala. A. 507, 56 S 858; McPeak v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 128 Mo. 617, 30 SW 170; Tanchof v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Mo. A.) 177 SW 813; Rand v. Butte Electric R. Co., 40 Mont. 398, 107 P 87; Morrow v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.. 134 N. C. 92, 46 SE 12. 96. Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Hardendorf. 164 Ind. 403, 72 NE 593 (whether the conductor of the car had authority to permit a passenger to stand on the running board): Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 20 NE 135; Quinn v. Shamokin, etc., Electric R. Co.. 7 Pa. Super. 19; Southern R. Co. v. Grubbs, 115 Va. 876, 80 SE 749. [a] for the jury to Thus it is determine whether a conductor was. in fact and in good faith. acting in the capacity of a conservator of the peace under authority given him by Code (1904) § 1294d par 45, and not in his capacity of conductor, where Southern he assaults a passenger. R. Co. v. Grubbs, 115 Va. 876, 80 SE 749. 97. D. C.-Kohner v. Capital Tract. Co., 22 App. 181, 62 LRA 875. Ga.-Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Overstreet, 17 Ga. A. 629, 87 SE 909. Iowa.-Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., Whether an employee, in exemplary damages. making an assault on a passenger, was acting within the general scope of his employment,99 whether the assault was justified by the conduct of the passenger, and whether the employee in committing the assault used more force than was necessary to repel an assault on him by the passenger,2 are generally questions of fact for the jury. 1 3 [ 1459] (6) Number and Efficiency of Employees. Negligence as to the number and efficiency of employees at a particular place, or in the operation of cars, is ordinarily a question for the jury, such as whether it was negligence to operate a street car R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 | defense); Hancock v. Missouri, etc., Ky.-South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. Trowbridge, 163 Ky. 79, 173 SW 371. Mass.-Wheeler v. Boston El. R. Co., 220 Mass. 298, 107 NE 938; Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 SE 849. Mo.-Ward v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 189 Mo. A. 305, 175 SW 296. N. J.-Martin v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 87 N. J. L. 648, 94 A 597. Pa.-Gaussman V. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 55 Pa. Super. 542. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shields, 9 Tex. Civ. A. 652, 28 SW 709, 29 SW 652. [a] Not assisting passenger.Whether railroad employees were negligent in not going to the assistance of a passenger whose clothes caught fire from alcohol spilled by a fellow passenger is a question for the jury. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Shields. 9 Tex. Civ. A. 652, 28 SW 709, 29 SW 652. 98. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Nalls, 188 Ala. 352, 66 S 5; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Glenn, 179 Ala. 263, 60 S 111; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Fisher, 173 Ala. 623, 55 S 995; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 S 568; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Taylor, 6 Ala. A. 661, 60 S 979. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Bostic, 121 Ark. 295, 180 SW 988, 181 SW 135. Ky.-Louisville St. R. Co. v. Brownfield, 96 SW 912, 29 KyL 1097. Minn.-Germann v. Great Northern R. Co., 117 Minn. 310, 135 NW 750. Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Roberts, 88 Miss. 80, 40 S 481. Mo.-Kelleher v. St. Louis United R. Co., 147 Mo. A. 553, 126 SW 796. N. Y.-Brewster V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 68 Misc. 348, 123 NYS 992. N. C.-Brown V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 161 N. C. 573, 77 SE 777. Tex.-Dallas Cons. Electric St. R. Co. v. Pettit, 47 Tex. Civ. A. 354, 105 SW 42. W. Va.-Teel v. Coal, etc., R. Co., 66 W. Va. 315, 66 SE 470. 2. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Berger, 64 Ark. 613, 44 SW 809, 39 LRA 784; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Huddleston, (Tex. Civ. A.) 178 SW 704. 3. Kuhlen v. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 341, 79 NE 815, 118 AmSR 516, 7 LRANS 729; Exton v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 63 N. J. L. 356, 46 A 1099, 56 LRA 508 [aff 62 N. J. L. 7, 42 A 486, 56 LRA 508]: Reschke v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 155 App. Div. 48, 139 NYS 555; Muhlhause v. Monongahela St. R. Co., 201 Pa. 237, 50 A 937. [a] Guards to prevent crowding. -Where the crowding of the platforms and cars of a carrier at certain hours of the day was unavoidable in carrying on its business, the questions whether the carrier was bound to employ an increased number of men to prevent such crowding as involved danger to passengers, and whether it was reasonable to require such precaution, were for the jury. Kuhlen V. Boston R. Co., 193 Mass. 341, 79 NE 815, 118 Am SR 516, 7 LRANS 729. 4. Cal.-Bosqui v. Sutro R. Co., 131 Cal. 390, 63 P 682. Iowa.-Cubbage v. Youngerman, 155 Iowa 39, 134 NW 1074. Md.-Belvedere Bldg. Co. v. Bryan, 103 Md. 514, 64 A 44. Mich.-Howell V. Lansing City Electric R. Co., 136 Mich. 432, 99 NW 406 (competency of motorman); Holman v. Union St. R. Co., 114 Mich. 208, 72 NW 202 (whether motorman was inexperienced and incompetent). Mo.-Lee v. Knapp, 155 Mo. 610, 56 SW 458. N. C.-Owens V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 439, 67 SE 993. S. C.-Martin v. Southern R. Co., 77 S. C. 370, 58 SE 3, 122 AmSR 574. Tex.-East Line, etc., R. Co. V. Rushing, 69 Tex. 306, 6 SW 834. Wash.-Caldwell v. Northern Pac. N. C.-Stanley v. Southern R. Co., 160 N. C. 323, 76 SE 221. R. Co., 56 Wash. 223, 105 P 625. Operating [a] at Tex.-Ft. unusual Worth, etc., R. Co. V. Enos, (Civ. A.) 50 SW 595 [mod as to speed.-Evidence that a car was run was deat an unusual speed and other matters Missouri, etc., R. Co. railed, causing injuries to a pasv. Enos, 92 Tex. 577, 50 SW 9281. senger, car [a] 99. Goodwin v. Cincinnati Tract. Mo.-Winston v. Lusk, 186 Mo. A. Whether the failure of a carrier to employ extremely cautious men is a breach of the carrier's duty to exercise the utmost care is prima facie a question for the court, and not for the jury, but the question whether such care has in fact been exercised is for the jury. Bosqui v. Sutro R. Co., 131 Cal. 390, 63 P 682. [b] Habitual failure to stop at crossing.-The question whether the habitual failure of an engineer to stop his train at a railroad crossing proved him to be a reckless and incompetent employee is for the jury. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Enos, (Tex. Civ. A.) 50 SW 595 [mod as to other matters Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Enos, 92 Tex. 577, 50 SW 928]. [c] Incompetency of elevator operator as question for jury.-Cubbage v. Youngerman, 155 Iowa 39, 134 NW without a conductor, unless the evidence thereon is insufficient, or is clear and undisputed." [§ 1460] (7) Acts of Fellow Passengers or Other Third Persons. Whether or not the carrier's employees exercised proper care to protect a passenger from the acts of fellow passengers,' or of other third persons, is ordinarily a question for the jury, unless the evidence is insufficient to be submitted, or is 1074; Belvedere Bldg. Co. v. Bryan, 103 Md. 514, 64 A 44 (whether defendant was negligent in failing to provide an employee who would and did exercise reasonable and ordinary care in operating an elevator); Lee v. Knapp, 155 Mo. 610, 56 SW 458. 5. Armstrong v. Montgomery St. R. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 26 S 349; Holly v. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215, 34 AmR 97; Lamline v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 14 Daly 144, 6 NYSt 248 (no conductor on horse car). 6. Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 575, 30 NE 721 [rev 14 NYS 172]; Worthington v. Central Vt. R. Co., 64 Vt. 107, 23 A 590, 15 LRA 326. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Where there was nothing in the record to show that the train was improperly operated on account of a lack of brakemen, it was error for the court to submit to the jury, on the question of negligence in operating the train. the fact that there were but two brakemen on it. Worthington v. Central Vermont R. Co., 64 Vt. 107, 23 A 590. 15 LRA 326. (2) Where, in an action by a passenger against a street railroad company for injuries caused by a collision resulting from the fracture of the brake chain, and the consequent inability of the driver to stop the car on a grade, there is no evidence that the driver was wanting in care or skill, it is error to submit the question to the jury. Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 575, 30 NE 721 [rev 14 NYS 172]. 7. Ala.-Montgomery Tract. Co. v. Whatley, 152 Ala. 101, 44 S 538, 126 AmSR 17 (protection from intoxicated fellow passenger). Ga.-Holly v. Atlanta St. R. Co., 61 Ga. 215, 34 AmR 97; Grimsley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1 Ga. A. 557, 57 SE 943 (protection from intoxicated passenger). Ky. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Taylor, 85 SW 168, 27 KyL 351 (protection from intoxicated passengers). Mass.-Isenberg v. New York, etc., R. Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 NE 1046; Nute V. Boston, etc., R. Co., 214 Mass. 184, 100 NE 1099; Glennen v. Boston El. R. Co., 207 Mass. 497, 93 NE 700, 32 LRANS 470. Mich.-McWilliams v. Lake Shore. etc., R. Co., 146 Mich. 216, 109 NW 272. N. Y.-Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 107 App. Div. 254, 95 NYS 23; Grogan v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 97 App. Div. 413, 87 NYS 1027; Koch v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 75 App. Div. 282, 78 NYS 99; Stutsky v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 94 NYS 433; Buck v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 48, 2 NYS 718. Tex.-Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, 182 SW 893 [rev (Civ. A.) 146 SW 355]; Twichell v. Pecos, etc.. R. Co., 62 Tex. Civ. A. 175, 131 SW 243; Walker v. International, etc.. R. Co., 54 Tex. Civ. A. 406, 117 SW 1020; Segal v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 35 Tex. Civ. A. 517, 80 SW 233; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bratcher, (Civ. A.) 78 SW 531; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Storey, 29 Tex. Civ. A. 483, 68 SW 534. Wash.-Kelly v. Navy Yard Route, 77 Wash. 148, 137 P 444. 8. Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 S 889; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 217 I11. 605, 75 NE 520; Tate v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 81 SW 256, 26 KyL 309, 341 (in depot); Seawell v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 132 N. C. 856, 44 SE 610 [reh den 133 N. C. 515, 45 SE 850] (assault on passenger at station). clear and undisputed." [§ 1461] (8) Condition and Use of Carrier's Premises, Tracks, and Roadbed. It is ordinarily a question for the jury as to whether the carrier exercised proper care in regard to the condition of its walks, platforms, or other station premises at the time of the injury,10 such as whether such premises were properly lighted at the time," or whether [a] Consent of passenger to illegal search. Where plaintiff, a woman, who was illegally searched on the premises of defendant carrier after she had begun a journey, went with an officer of the law first to the freight room and then to the waiting room where she was searched, her failure to object or protest is not, as a matter of law, a consent to the search, the question being one for the jury. Nashville, etc., R. v. Crosby, 183 Ala. 237, 62 S 889. 9. Fritz v. Southern R. Co., 132 N. C. 829, 44 SE 613 (motion for a nonsuit held properly granted); Brehony v. Pottsville Union Tract. Co., 218 Pa. 123, 66 A 1006. [a] For instance, where, in an action by a woman, a passenger on a street car, to recover against the carrier for injuries received from an intoxicated passenger, the only negligence alleged was in allowing the man to enter the car when he appeared intoxicated, it was error to submit the case to the jury where the evidence showed that there was no appearance of intoxication until he was asked to pay his fare. Brehony v. Pottsville Union Tract. Co., 218 Pa. 123, 66 A 1006. 10. U. S.-New York, etc., R. Co. v. Lincoln, 223 Fed. 896, 139 CCA 334; Delaware, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 221 Fed. 848, 137 CCA 406 [certiorari den 238 U. S. 636 mem, 35 SCt 939 mem, 59 L. ed. 1500 mem]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rorvig, 217 Fed. 953, 133 CCA 625 (ice on platform); Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Humble, 97 Fed. 837, 38 CCA 502 [aff 181 U. S. 57, 21 SCt 526, 45 L. ed. 747] (defective chair in waiting room); Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Griffin, 80 Fed. 278, 25 CCA 413. Ala.-Alabama Great Southern R. Ark.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. Il-Gascoigne V. Metropolitan Ind. Glenn v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Kan. Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Ky.-Louisville, Md.-Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Mass.-Moriarty v. Boston, etc., R. Mich.-Cousineau V. Muskegon Minn.-Vance v. Great Northern R. Mo.-Wood v. Metropolitan St. R. Nebr.-Union Pac. R. Co. v. Evans, 52 Nebr. 50, 71 NW 1062 (approach to platform). N. H.-Crawford v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 76 N. 'H. 29, 78 A 1078 (failure to keep waiting room in proper condition); Fisher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 75 N. H. 184. N. J. Vosler v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 727, 73 A 483. N. Y.-Reschke v. Syracuse, etc., R. Co., 155 App. Div. 48, 139 NYS 555; Lycett v. Manhattan R. Co., 12 App. Div. 326, 42 NYS 431; Bateman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 47 Hun 429 (depression in walk); Flagg v. Manhattan R. Co., 49 N. Y. Super. 251 [aff 101 N. Y. 624 mem]; Foster v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 2 HowPrNS 416. Pa.-Thorne v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 470, 90 A 914. S. C.-Neal v. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 197, 75 SE 405; Williford v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 301, 67 SE 302. Tex.-Houston Belt, etc., R. Co. v. Winerich, (Civ. A.) 162 SW 903 (condition of elevator in station); Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Perry, (Civ. A.) 147 SW 305 (cold waiting room); Johnson v. Texas Cent. R. Co., 42 Tex. Civ. A. 604, 93 SW 433 (whether a railroad company was negligent in maintaining walks of loose gravel and stone at a station). etc., Vt.-Sullivan V. Delaware, Canal Co., 72 Vt. 353, 47 A 1084. Wis.-Bates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 Wis. 235, 122 NW 745, 133 AmSR 1069. [a] Obstruction.-In an action against a railroad company for injuries to a passenger from exposure to cold while awaiting removal of an obstruction from the track in order to reach the station, the question as to unreasonable or unlawful obstruction was, on conflicting evidence, for the jury. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Daugherty, 108 SW 336, 32 KyL 1392, 15 LRANS 740. 11. U. S.-O'Field v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 189 Fed. 721, 111 CCA 259; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mayer, 183 Fed. 575, 105 CCA 646 [aff 228 U. S. 357, 33 SCt 548, 57 L. ed. 875]. Ill.-Wood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 167 Ill. A. 644; Chadbourne v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 104 Ill. A. 333. Ind.-Pere Marquette R. Co. V. Strange, 171 Ind. 160, 84 NE 819, 20 LRANS 1041. Iowa.-Drummy V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 479, 133 NW 655; Merryman V. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 135 Iowa 591, 113 NW 357. Ky-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Mass.-Keefe v. Boston, etc., R. Park, Or. Abbott v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961 and note. Pa. Hall v. Bessemer, etc., R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. 556. V. S. C.-Williford v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 301, 67 SE 302. Tex.-Texas Cent. R. Co. Wheeler, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 603, 116 SW 83; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Barnett, 19 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 47 SW 1039. Wis.-Bates v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 140 Wis. 235, 122 NW 745, 133 AmSR 1069. [a] What is a reasonable time during which a carrier is required to have its station lighted prior to the arrival and departure of a passenger train is for the jury under all the platform used for boarding and alighting from trains or cars was constructed and maintained in a reasonably safe condition.12 It is also ordinarily a question for the jury as to whether the carrier had or was chargeable with knowledge that a platform not intended for passengers would be used by them,' or whether the carrier impliedly invited intending passengers to use a certain approach to the station.14 Condition of tracks and roadbed. case. the circumstances of the particular Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Harvey, 45 Ind. A. 153, 90 NE 318; Abbott v. Oregon R. Co., 46 Or. 549, 80 P 1012, 114 AmSR 885, 1 LRANS 851, 7 AnnCas 961 and note. 12. U. S.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stockton, 184 Fed. 422, 106 CCA 433 (overcrowded platform); Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Dupont, 128 Fed. 840, 64 CCA 478; Baker v. Clarke, 99 Fed. 911, 40 CCA 174. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Fuqua, 114 Ark. 112, 169 SW 786; Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Robinson, 96 Ark. 32, 130 SW 536. D. C.--Dixon v. Great Falls, etc., R. Co., 38 App. 598; Dixon v. Great Falls, etc., R. Co., 38 App. 591, Ann Cas1913C 571. Ill. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 179 Ill. 576, 54 NE 290 [aff 75 Ill. A. 327] (space between platform and car). Kan.-Edwards v. Union Pac. R. Co., 90 Kan. 183, 133 P 728, AnnCas 1916A 137 and note. Ky.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Honley, 155 Ky. 447, 159 SW 1147. Mass.-Hutchinson v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 219 Mass. 389, 107 NE 271; Savageau v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 210 Mass. 164, 96 NE 67; Beverley v. Boston El. R. Co., 194 Mass. 450, 80 NE 507 (overcrowded platform); Keefe v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 142 Mass. 251, 7 NE 874. 13 Negligence with respect to the condition of the track or roadbed at the place where the injury occurred is also ordinarily a question for the jury,15 unless the evidence thereon is insufficient to go to the jury, or is clear and undisputed.16 [§ 1462] (9) Taking Up Passengers. Whether or not the carrier was guilty of negligence with respect to taking up a passenger is ordinarily a question for the jury,17 such as whether it was negligent in assisting, or in failing to assist, a passenger to board ing skids and trucks on platform); | St. R. Co., 103 Me. 482, 70 A 534, 125 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reich, (Civ. A.) AmSR 315, 18 LRANS 497. 32 SW 817. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. Shivers, 101 Md. 391, 61 A 618. Mich.-Whipple v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 143 Mich. 41, 106 NW 690. Minn.-Edlund v. St. Paul City R. Co., 78 Minn. 434, 81 NW 214. Wis. Tarczsek V. Chicago, etc., [a] Illustrations.—(1) It cannot Mo.-Heyde v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 537, 77 SW 127 (misplaced switch causing derailment). N. Y.-France v. New York Cent., V. Pennsylvania Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Berthea, (Civ. A.) 179 SW 1087; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Matchett, (Civ. A.) 152 SW 1113; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Cheatham, 52 Tex, Civ. Á. 1, 113 SW 777; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clippenger, 47 Tex. Civ. A. 510, 106 SW 155; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Phillips, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 238, 74 SW 793. W. Va.-Brogan v. Ünion Tract. Co., 86 SE 753. Eng. Grote v. Chester, etc., R. Co., 2 Exch. 251, 154 Reprint 485. near [a] Abandonment of derailment switch.-Whether the abandonment of a derailment switch of a street railroad near its intersection with a steam railroad constitutes actionable [b] Evidence held insuficient: negligence, resulting in the injuries for (1) To go to the jury as to negli- complained of, is the jury. gence of the carrier in regard to the Brogan v. Union Tract. Co., (W. Va.) Fahner V. 86 SE 753. Brooklyn premises. Heights R. Co., 86 App. Div. 488, 83 [b] Tracks obstruction.NYS 815; McMahon v. New York El. Where a street railroad company 507. R. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. (2) places its tracks so near an obstrucTo require submission to the jury tion which it is necessary to pass of a carrier's negligence in failing that its passengers standing on the to have a guard railing on a plat- footboard of its cars, where they are form used by passengers in board- permitted, and often compelled, to ing and alighting from cars. Moel- stand, are in danger of being inler v. United R. Co., 242 Mo. 721, 147 jured by contact with such obstrucSW 1009. maintain guard rail at end of plat- of negligence to the jury, as to the jury whether the company is or is (3) To leave the question tion, it is a fair question for the form); Randolph V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 106 Mo. A. 646, 79 SW 1170 not guilty of negligence. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Marks, 82 Ill. A. (as to space between car and platform); Stafford v. Hannibal, etc., R. 185 [aff 182 Ill. 15, 55 NË 67]. Co., 22 Mo. A. 333. Mo.-Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 SW 1069 (greasy platform); Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 169 Mo. 409, 69 SW 348; Robertson v. Wabash R. Co., 152 Mo. 382, 53 SW 1082 (hole in platform); Barth v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; Munro v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 710, 135 SW 1016; Moeller v. St. Louis United R. Co., 133 Mo. A. 68, 112 SW 714 (failure to N. H.-Haselton V. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 71 N. H. 589, 53 A 1016 (platform by the side of a street railroad). N. Y.-McGuire v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 105, 93 NYS 316 (icy platform); Green v. Middlesex Valley R. Co., 31 App. Div. 412, 53 NYS 500, 28 NYCiv Proc 152, 6 NYAnnCas 107; McGearty v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 App. Div. 2, 43 NYS 1086; Langin v. New York, etc.. Bridge, 10 App. Div. 529, 42 NYS 353 (space between platform and car); Windels v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 49 Misc. 646, 98 NYS 854 (space between car and platform). Pa.-Clunn v. Williamsport, etc., R. Co., 39 Pa. Super. 591 (obstruction on platform); Hall v. Bessemer, etc., R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. 556. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Fox, 6 SW 569 (platform constructed at an unusual height, and four feet from the car platform); Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 603, 116 SW 83 (track on platform); Harrison v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 49 Tex. Civ. A. 467, 109 SW 442 (depression in platform); Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Work, (Civ. A.) 100 SW 962; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Barrett, 35 Tex. Civ. A. 366, 80 SW 660 (leav space between the platform and the 16. Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Gilleland, 133 Ga. 621, 66 SE 944; Whipple v. Michigan Cent. R. Čo., 130 Mich. 460, 90 NW 287. 17. U. S.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stockton, 184 Fed. 422, 106 CCA 433. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Snell, 82 Ark. 61, 100 SW 67. [c] Question not involved. 13. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. 14. Chase V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 134 Mo. A. 655, 114 SW 1141. 15. Cal.-Holloway V. Pasadena, etc., R. Co., 130 Cal. 177, 62 P 478. Ill-Elgin, etc., Tract. Co. v. Wilson, 217 Ill. 47, 75 NE 436 [aff 120 Ill. A. 371] (failure to keep main track switch locked or guarded); West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Marks, 82 II. A. 185 [aff 182 Ill. 15, 55 NE 67]. Iowa.-Mitchell V. Chicago, etc., D. C.-Great Falls, etc., R. Co. v. Hammerly, 40 App. 196 (disregardsignal of an intending passenger, and running at high speed past the station). Ga. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Goodman, 119 Ga. 234, 45 SE 969. Ill. Cicero, etc., St. R. Co. v. Meixner, 160 Ill. 320, 43 NE 823. 31 LRA 331 [aff 55 Ill. A. 288] (as to person boarding moving street car). Iowa.-Blades v. Des Moines City R. Co., 113 NW 922. Ky.-Jonas V. South Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965 (as to passenger attempting to board a moving street car). Mass.-Carter v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 205 Mass. 21, 91 NE 142; Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849. Mo.-Goebel v. St. Louis United R. a train or car,18 or whether it exercised proper care in respect to the place at which the train or car stopped,19 or whether the carrier induced the public to believe that they were invited to board trains at a place other than a regular stopping place.20 It is also ordinarily a question for the jury as to whether Oh.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Hotchkiss, 24 Oh. Cir. Ct. 431. Pa. Feiser v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 245 Pa. 422, 91 A 852; Redington v. Harrisburg Tract. Co., 210 Pa. 648, 60 A 305; Donnelly v. Buffalo, etc., Tract. Co., 40 Pa. Super. 110; Ditchfield v. Philadelphia, etc., Tract. Co., 32 Pa. Super. 531 (attempt to board moving car). Wash.-Hendrickson V. Grays Harbor R., etc., Co., 88 Wash. 145, 152 P 992. W. Va.-Duty v. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 70 W. Va. 14, 73 SE 331. [a] Directions to board moving train. Where there is evidence to the effect that the trainmen, instead of warning a passenger not to get on a moving train, directed him to get on, it was for the jury, and not for the court, to say what directions he received from the trainmen. Fulks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 111 Mo. 335, 19 SW 818. [b] Evidence held to warrant directed verdict for defendant as to a person attempting to board a moving car. Schmidt v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 66 N. J. L. 424, 49 A 438; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Schuttee, (Tex. Civ. A.) 91 SW 806. 18. U. S.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Reed, 60 Fed. 694, 9 CCA 219 (moving train). Ky.-Jonas V. South Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965. Mo.-Eichorn v. Missouri, etc., R. S. C.-Richardson v. Augusta, etc., Co. v. [a] Grabbing passenger's arm.In an action by one injured in attempting to board a moving street car, who claims that the conductor negligently grabbed his arm, the question of the conductor's negligence is for the jury. Jonas V. South Covington, etc., St. R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965. 19. Haas v. Wichita R., etc., Co., 89 Kan. 613, 132 P 195, 48 LRANS 974 and note. 20. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Doan, 195 Ill. 168, 62 NE 826 [aff 93 Ill. A. 247]. [a] Thus, where railroad trains for several years have been accustomed to stop at a certain point where there was no platform or other provisions for passengers before crossing another railroad track, and employees of various establishments in the neighborhood were in the habit of there taking the trains, no objection ever having been made to their so doing, and the railroad employees sometimes assisting them. and fare being always collected from those who thus boarded the trains, the question whether the company had induced the public to believe they were invited to board the trains at that place was for the jury. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Doan, 195 Ill. 168, 62 NE 826 [aff 93 Ill. A. 247]. 21. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Selhorst, 165 Ala. 475, 51 S 568. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Richardson, 87 Ark. 101, 112 SW 212. D. C.-Anacostia, etc., R. Co. V. Klein, 8 App. 75. Ga.-Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. v. Bradley, 125 Ga. 193, 54 SE 69, 114 AmSR 196. Ill. Collins v. Chicago City R. Co., 182 Ill. A. 176. Iowa.-Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343; Jaques V. Sioux City Tract. Co., 124 Iowa 257, 99 NW 1069. [10 C.J.-68] Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Hardin, 157 Ky. 13, 162 SW 541; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Scalf, 155 Ky. 273, 159 SW 804; Samuels v. Louisville R. Co., 151 Ky. 90, 151 SW 37 (whether a street car was started with an unusual jerk as plaintiff was boarding it). Md. Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Baer, 90 Md. 97, 44 A 992. Mass.-O'Loughlin v. Bay State St. R. Co., 221 Mass. 65, 108 NE 905; Frink v. Boston El. R. Co., 218 Mass. 121, 105 NE 381 (whether the conductor was negligent in allowing the car to be started by a third person); Martin V. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 456, 101 NE 1089; Pickford v. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. 507, 100 NE 548; Yancy v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 162, 91 NE 202, 137 Am SR 431, 26 LRANS 1217 and note; Ryan v. Pittsfield Electric St. R. Co., 203 Mass. 283, 89 NE 527; Lacour v. Springfield St. R. Co., 200 Mass. 34, 85 NE 868; Rand v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 569, 84 NE 841. Mich. Goodyear v. Detroit United R. Co., 177 Mich. 129, 143 NW 14. Minn. Miller v. St. Paul City R. Co., 66 Minn. 192, 68 NW 862. Mo.-Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 SW 91; Joyce v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 SW 21; Wellman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 126, 118 SW 31; Berry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 211 Mo. 88, 109 SW 661; Barth v. Kansas City Él. R. Co., 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; McKee v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 470, 83 SW 1013. N. J.-Budner v. New Jersey Public Service Corp., 74 N. J. L. 298, 65 A 893; Kulman v. Erie R. Co., 65 N. J. L. 241, 47 A 497; McKenna v. North Hudson County R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 106, 45 A 776. N. Y.-Wolfkiel v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 49; Hirschberg v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 134 App. Div. 629, 119 NYS 492; McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 128 App. Div. 866, 113 NYS 119 [aff 198 N. Y. 522 mem, 92 NE 1091 mem]; Morrow v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 119 App. Div. 22. 103 NYS 998; Ericius V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 63 App. Div. 353, 71 NYS 596; Fay v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 62 App. Div. 51, 70 NYS 763; Sexton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 App. Div. 26, 57 NYS 577; De Rozas v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 296, 43 NYS 27; Daley v. Port Jervis, etc., R. Co., 80 Hun 174, 29 NYS 1011; Lang v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 76 Misc. 195, 134 NYS 627 (whether a subway train was started with due care for the safety of those boarding it); Schalscha v. Third Ave. R. Co., 19 Misc. 141, 43 NYS 251; Silber v. New York City R. Co., 99 NYS 837; Michelson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 87 NYS 501; Dillon v. Manhattan R. Co., 1 NYS 679. N. C.-Roberts v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 N. C. 79, 70 SE 1080. Pa. Giovanelli v. Erie R. Co., 228 Pa. 33, 76 A 424; Holmes v. Allegheny Tract. Co., 153 Pa. 152, 25 A 640; Cahill V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 52 Pa. Super. 561; Austrian v. United Tract. Co., 19 Pa. Super. 329; Shuart v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 15 Pa. Super. 26. V. Tex.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 59 Tex. Civ. A. 300, 125 SW 628; San Antonio, etc.. R. Co. Trigo, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 523, 108 SW 1193; Johnson v. Texas Cent. R. Co., 42 Tex. Civ. A. 604, 93 SW 433. Va.-Blue Ridge Light, etc., Co. v. Price, 108 Va. 652, 62 SE 938. Wash.-Atwood V. Washington Water Power Co., 79 Wash. 427, 140 P 343; Gilcher v. Seattle Electric [a] Where a passenger who is old and feeble and unable to help himself is injured by the usual starting of the car, the negligence of the conductor in failing to give him a reasonable opportunity to reach a place of safety before giving the starting signal is ordinarily for the jury. Flanagan V. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 337, 103 NE 905; Holmes v. Allegheny Tract. Co., 153 Pa. 152, 25 A 640. [b] Starting on assurance from passengers that it is "all right."The question of a conductor's negligence in starting a car on assurance from passengers on the rear platform that it was "all right" may, in view of all the circumstances, be for the jury. Pickford v. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. 507, 100 NE 548. [c] What constitutes a reasonable time to board a street car is ordinarily a question for the jury; if the car platform is crowded, or there are a number of passengers to board the car, more time may be necessary than where the number is small or the ingress unobstructed. Rand v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 569, 84 NE 841. [d] Passenger boarding after having alighted to procure ticket.Where, after plaintiff had boarded a train without a ticket, he was directed to disembark and obtain one, and was injured while endeavoring to again get aboard after the train had started, the carrier's failure to hold the train a reasonable time to enable plaintiff to obtain a ticket, and its negligence in directing him to leave the train to get a ticket, were properly submitted to the jury. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Trigo, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 523, 108 SW 1193. [e] Evidence insufficient.-Where, in an action against a street railroad company for injury to a passenger who was thrown down by the sudden starting of the car as he was getting on, there was no evidence relating to the conductor, except that plaintiff did not see him, it was error to leave the question of the conductor's negligence to the jury. Monroe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Div. 587, 80 NYS 177. 22. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 SW 706. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436, 136 SW 892. Mass.-Hamilton V. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 193 Mass. 324, 79 NE 734. Mo.-Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 SW 91. N. Y.-McGlynn v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 128 App. Div. 866, 113 NYS 119 [aff 198 N. Y. 522 mem, 92 NE 1091 mem] (whether it is want of ordinary care to start a street car before a woman passenger has obtained a seat). Pa.-Goodhart V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. 441. Wash.-Rice V. Puget Sound Tract., etc., Co., 80 Wash. 47, 141 P 191. [a] Woman with child in arms. -Whether or not a woman entering a street car with a baby in her arms should be given an opportunity to be seated before the car is started is a question for the jury. Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436. 136 SW 892. [b] It is not negligence per se to start a street car while passengers are standing either in the car or on the platform or in the vestibule. Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598, 151 SW 91. See generally supra §§ 1366, 1367. another train or car is receiving or discharging passengers is negligence,23 or whether the train or car which caused the injury to a passenger or intending passenger who was rightfully on or near the tracks at a station or regular stopping place was operated at the time in a negligent manner,24 is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. 23. U. S.-Atlantic City R. Co. v. Clegg, 183 Fed. 216, 105 CCA 478 [certiorari den 220 U. S. 609 mem, 31 SCt 714 mem, 55 L. ed. 608 mem]. Ill.-Pennsylvania Co. v. McCaffrey, 173 Ill. 169, 50 NE 713 [aff 68 Ill. A. 635]; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Shiplett. 85 Ill. A. 683. Ky. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. Mass.-Renaud v. New York, etc., R. Co., 206 Mass. 557, 92 NE 710. Minn.-Fonda v. St. Paul City R. Co., 71 Minn. 438, 74 NW 166, 70 Am SR 341. Mo.-Allen V. St. Louis Transit Co., 183 Mo. 411, 81 SW 1142; Richter v. United R. Co., 145 Mo. A. 1, 129 SW 1055; Hornstein v. United R. Co., 97 Mo. A. 271, 70 SW 1105. N. J.-Walger v. Jersey City, etc.. R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 356, 59 A 14. N. Y.-Craven v. International R. Co.. 100 App. Div. 157, 91 NYS 625; Jewell v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co.. 27 App. Div. 500, 50 NYS 848. Pa.-Girton v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 17 Pa. Super. 143. 24. U. S.-Chunn v. Washington City, etc.. R. Co., 207 U. S. 302, 28 SCt 63, 52 L. ed. 219 [rev 23 App. (D. C.) 551]; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wagley, 91 Fed. 860, 34 CCA 114. Ga. Smith v. Atlantic Coast Line Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Sheehan, 146 Ky. 168, 142 SW 221; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 135 Ky. 462, 122 SW 806. Mass.-Sonier v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 141 Mass. 10, 6 NE 84. N. J.-Redhing v. Cent. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 641, 54 A 431. N. Y.-Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203; D'Arcy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 165 App. Div. 757, 152 NYS 500; Ricciardelli v. New York Cent.. etc., R. Co., 165 App. Div. 152, 150 NYS 593; Allenza v. Erie R. Co., 78 Misc. 659, 138 NYS 1024. Pa. Muhlhause V. Monongahela St. R. Co., 201 Pa. 237, 50 A 937. [a] For example, whether it is negligence to run a street car at full speed past a usual stopping place when persons can plainly be seen standing on the platform between the inner rails awaiting a car approaching from the opposite direction is a question for the jury, where the street car company had sanctioned such a practice on the part of intending passengers, and the space between the rails, while wide enough to enable a person standing in the center to escape injury, left but a narrow margin of safety. Chunn v. Washington City, etc., R. Co., 207 U. S. 302, 28 SCt 63, 52 L. ed. 219 [rev 23 App. (D. C.) 551]. [b] High rate of speed.-Whether it is negligence to run two freight trains at the rate of thirty to forty miles per hour past a platform where passengers are rightfully waiting to board a train is a question of fact. Smith v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Ill. A. 476. [c] Evidence of negligence held insufficient to go to the jury in an action for the death of a person struck by an engine, at a station while seeking transportation. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Watson, 97 Ark. 560. 134 SW 949. 25. U. S.-Riegel v. Pullman Co., 210 Fed. 273, 127 CCA 121 (door swinging shut); Boston, etc., R. Co. v. Stockwell, 146 Fed. 505, 77 CCA 19 (platform gates on cars): New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Schneider, 60 Fed. 210, 8 CCA 571. [§ 1464] (11) Condition of Cars and Equipment. Whether or not the carrier was negligent with respect to the construction and maintenance, in a safe condition, of the car, equipment, or appliances which caused the injury, is ordinarily a question for the jury,25 except where the evidence is insufficient to go to the jury, or is clear and undisputed, on SW 38 (insecure fastening of door); Black v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 162 Mo. A. 90, 144 SW 131; Donovan v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 649. 138 SW 679; Holland V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. A. 117, 79 SW 508. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389, 36 S 736 (as to coupling). Cal.-Frost v. Los Angeles R. Co., 165 Cal. 365, 132 P 442 (sufficiency of brakes); Morgan v. Los Angeles Pac. Co., 13 Cal. A. 12, 108 P 735. Conn. Kebbe V. Connecticut Co., 85 Conn. 641, 84 A 329, AnnCas1913C 167. D. C.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Howard, 14 App. 262 [aff 178 U. S. 153, 20 SCt 880, 44 L. ed. 1015]; Metropolitan R. Co. v. Falvey, 5 App. 176. Ga.-Western, etc., R. Co. v. Deitch. Ill.-Pell v. Joliet, etc., R. Co., 238 Ind.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Ky.-South Covington, etc., R. Co. Md.-Hanway v. Baltimore. etc., R. Mass.-Davies v. Boston El. R. Co., Mich. Dorrance v. Michigan United Minn. Decker v. Chicago, etc., R. Mo.-Beave v. St. Louis Transit N. J.-Machlin v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 N. J. L. 362, 85 A 340; Murphy v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 706, 80 A 331, 35 LRANS 592 and note [rev 73 A 1119]; Kuttner v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 80 N. J. L. 11, 77 A 470 [aff 81 N. J. L. 731, 80 A 1135]. N. Y.-Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 575, 30 NE 721 [rev 14 NYS 172] (as to inspection of brake chain); Boice v. Ulster, etc., R. Co., 120 App. Div. 643, 105 NYS 83 (construction of window); German v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 107 App. Div. 354, 95 NYS 112; Stern v. Westchester Electric R. Co., 99 App. Div. 491, 90 NYS 870; Dorff v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 95 App. Div. 82, 88 NYS 463; Loder v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 84 App. Div. 591, 82 NYS 957; Buckbee v. Third Ave. R. Co., 64 App. Div. 360, 72 NYS 217; Leonard v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 57 App. Div. 125, 67 NYS 985; Poulsen v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 30 App. Div. 246, 51 NYS 933; Poulsen v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 18 App. Div. 221, 45 NYS 941; Newton v. Central Vermont R. Co., 80 Hun 491, 30 NYS 488 [aff 151 N. Y. 624 mem, 45 NE 1133 mem]; Palmer V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 46 Hun 486 [aff 120 N. Y. 170, 24 NE 302, 17 AmSR 629] (sufficiency of inspection); Goodrich_v. Pennsylvania, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 29 Hun 50 (pulling out of drawhead); Hegeman V. Western R. Corp., Barb. 353 [aff 13 N. Y. 9, 64 AmD 517] (breaking of axle); Stappers v. Interurban St. R. Co., 56 Misc. 337, 106 NYS 854; Norris v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 4 Misc. 294, 24 NYS 140; Boehncke v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 3 Misc. 49, 22 NYS 712. 16 R. Pa.-Burns V. Pennsylvania Co., 233 Pa. 304, 82 A 246, AnnCas 1913B 811 and note (dress suit case in aisle); West Philadelphia Pass. R. Co. v. Gallagher. 108 Pa. 524; Johnson v. Mahoning, etc., R., etc., Co., 60 Pa. Super. 530; Whitehouse v. Pittsburg R. Co., 36 Pa. Super. 581; McNerney V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 27 Pa. Super. 168. S. C.-Bunch v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 91 S. C. 139, 74 SE 363. Tex.-Weatherford, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (Civ. A.) 170 SW 133; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Roach, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 95, 114 SW 418 (inspection and testing of heating apparatus); International, etc., R. Co. v. Hubbs, 37 Tex. Civ. A. 77, 82 SW 1062; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Greer, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 5. 53 SW 58; Sturdivant v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 27 SW 170. Vt.-Blunt v. Montpelier, etc., R. Eng. Manser v. Eastern Counties Can.-Toronto R. Co. v. Fleming. 47 Can. S. C. 612, 12 DomLR 249, 49 CanLJ 386, 15 CanRCas 386 [aff 27 Ont. L. 332, 8 Dom LR 507, 4 OntWN 323, 23 OntWN 385] (explosion in controller box). [a] Guards for wheels of street car.- Whether a street railroad carrier is negligent in not having guards for the wheels of the car, as required |