that question.26 Thus it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether it was negligence to leave the vestibule connection between two cars unlighted on a dark night,27 or to leave the outside or trapdoor of the vestibule open, without a guard.28 30 disputed character, of the evidence makes it a question for the court. Thus it is generally a question for the jury as to whether the carrier was negligent as to the overloaded or overcrowded condition of the car;31 or whether it was negligent as to the rate of speed at which the car was running at the time of the accident;32 or whether it was negligent as to causing a passenger to fall or to be pushed or thrown from the car, such as by reason of its [§ 1465] (12) Operation of Cars. Whether or not the train or the car which caused the injury was, at the time, operated with the proper degree of care and skill is generally a question for the jury,29 unless the insufficiency, or the clear and unby an ordinance, is to be determined | Michael, 115 Ark. 101, 171 SW 115; by the jury. Finkeldey v. Omnibus Robinson v. Little Rock R., etc., Co., Cable Co., 114 Cal. 28, 45 P 996. 113 Ark. 227. 168 SW 1125. D. C.-Knight v. Metropolitan R. Co., 21 App. 494; Adams v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 9 App. 26. [b] Necessity of improvement.(1) Whether the adoption by a company of an improvement enhancing the safety of passengers is, under the evidence, a necessary and proper protection is a question of fact for the jury. Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 AmD 517 [aff 16 Barb. 353]. (2) On the question of proper equipment of cars, it is not a sufficient answer to an issue of negligence to show that other carriers were using the same equipment. but the question must be submitted to the jury. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Gresham, (Tex. Civ. A.) 140 SW 483. Ga.-Wood v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 84 Ga. 363, 10 SE 967; Holleman v. Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co., 12 Ga. A. 755, 78 SE 428; Valdosta St. R. Co. v. Fenn, 11 Ga. A. 586, 75 SE 984. Ill. Barnes V. Danville St. R.. etc., Co., 236 I11. 566, 85 NE 921, 126 AmSR 237; Wimmer v. Chicago R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 523; Mumaugh v. Chicago City R. Co., 180 111. A. 229. Kan. Metropolitan St. R. Co. V. Warren, 74 Kan. 244, 86 P 131, 89 P 656. Adams v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 134 Ky. 620, 121 SW 419, 135 AmSR 425, 21 AnnCas 321 and note. [c] Guards for car windows.—(1) Ky.-Southern R. Co. v. Neal, 164 It is for the jury to determine Ky. 121, 175 SW 14; South Covingwhether reasonable diligence requires ton, etc., St. R. Co. v. Trowbridge, 163 that a street railroad company should Ky. 79, 173 SW 371; Central Kenplace guards in front of the car win-tucky Tract. Co. v. May, 126 SW 1092; dows in order to prevent passengers from exposing their arms. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Schneider, 60 Fed. 210, 8 CCA 571. (2) Likewise, whether a railroad operating its cars on double tracks so close together as to be dangerous for passengers ought to provide guards at the windows to prevent passengers from extending their arms outside is for the jury. Pell v. Joliet, etc., R. Co., 238 Ill. 510, 87 NE 542 [aff 142 Ill. A. 362]. 26. Ala. Carlisle V. Central of Georgia R. Co., 183 Ala. 195, 62 S 759. Ark. Sloan v. Little Rock R., etc., Co., 89 Ark. 574, 117 SW 551. Mich.-Werbowlsky v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 86 Mich. 236, 48 NW 1097, 24 AmSR 120. Mo.-Ferguson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 123 Mo. A. 590, 100 SW 537. N. Y.-Craighead v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 123 N. Y. 391, 25 NE 387 [rev 5 NYS 431]. Oh. Mt. Adams, etc., R. Co. V. Canagna, 6 Oh. Cir. Ct. 606, 3 Oh. Dec. 608. Pa.-Kantner v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 236 Pa. 283, 84 A 774. [a] Evidence showing defect nondetectable.-Although, where a passenger is injured by reason of a defect of an appliance, a presumption of negligence of the carrier arises, where plaintiff's evidence shows not only that the wheels of a car were broken and defective but also that the defect was such that it could not have been detected by precaution, the court will sustain a demurrer to the evidence. Ferguson v. St. Louis. etc., R. Co., 123 Mo. A. 590, 100 SW 537. 27. Bronson v. Oakes, 76 Fed. 734, 22 CCA 520; Clanton v. Southern R. Co., 165 Ala. 485, 51 S 616, 27 LRANS 253. 28. U. S.-Bronson v. Oakes, 76 Fed. 734, 22 CCA 520. Ala.-Clanton v. Southern R. Co.. 165 Ala. 485, 51 S 616, 27 LRANS 253. Ark.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. Oliver, 92 Ark. 432, 123 SW 662. N. J.-Rivers v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 A 883 [rev 80 N. J. L. 217, 76 A 455]. Or. Kearney v. Oregon R.. etc., Co., 59 Or. 12, 112 P 1083, 115 P 593. 29. U. S.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Eddy, 228 Fed. 643. 143 CCA 165; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. White, 176 Fed. 900, 100 CCA 370. Ala-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Mulder, 149 Ala. 676, 42 S 742 (closing a door on a passenger's hand). Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mc Mass.-Leavitt V. Boston El. R. Co.. 222 Mass. 346, 110 NE 961; Walsh v. Boston El. R. Co., 222 Mass. 275. 110 NE 278; Hooper v. Bay State St. R. Co., 218 Mass. 251, 105 NE 892; Hamilton v. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. 420, 100 NE 604; Nolan v. Newton St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 384, 92 NE 505; White v. Fitchburg R. Co., 136 Mass. 321. Mich.-Richardson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 176 Mich. 413, 142 NW 832. Mo.-Roscoe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 202 Mo. 576, 101 SW 32; Wagner v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. 512, 10 SW 486, 3 LRA 156; McManus v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 116 Mo. A. 110, 92 SW 176. N. J.-Donohue v. Public Service R. Co., 79 N. J. L. 537, 78 A 183. N. Y.-Robson v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 80 App. Div. 301, 80 NYS 698; Lent v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 54 N. Y. Super. 317 [aff 120 N. Y. 467, 24 NE 653]. Pa.-Schenkel v. Pittsburgh, etc., Tract. Co., 194 Pa. 182, 44 A 1072; Dunlay v. United Tract. Co., 18 Pa. Super. 206; Diaz v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 23 Pa. Dist. 531. S. C.-Stembridge v. Southern R. Co., 65 S. C. 440, 43 SE 968. Tex. Cruseturner v. International, etc., R. Co., 38 Tex. Civ. A. 466, 86 SW 778. Utah.-Conway v. Salt Lake, etc., R. Co., 155 P 339. Wash.-Weir V. Seattle Electric Co., 41 Wash. 657, 84 P 597. "What constitutes negligence in the operation of a street car is a question of fact, not one of law." Wimmer v. Chicago R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 523, 525. [a] Failure to shut off power on stalled car.-Whether the motorman was negligent in failing to completely shut off the power when the car became stalled, before leaving it in an attempt to push it from the track, was for the jury. Barnes v. Danville St. R., etc., Co., 235 Ill. 566, 85 NE 921, 126 AmSR 237. 30. Dawson v. New York, etc., Bridge, 31 App. Div. 537, 52 NYS 133. See also supra § 1454. 31. Southern R. Co. v. Nappier, 138 Ga. 31, 74 SE 778; Lyndon v. Georgia R. etc.. Co., 3 Ga. A. 534, 60 SE 278; Kordick v. Chicago R. Co., 187 III. A. 74; Alton Light, etc., Co. v. Oller, 119 Ill. A. 181 [aff 217 Ill. 15, 75 NE 419, 4 LRANS 399 and note]; Lane v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 33 19 Okl. 324, 91 P 883; Osteen V. Dallas Cons. Electric St. R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 145 SW 643. See also infra note 34 [a]. 32. Ala. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Gilbert, 6 Ala. A. 372, 60 S 542. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Woods. 96 Ark. 311, 131 SW 869, 33 LRANS 855. Conn. Kebbe v. Connecticut Co., 85 Conn. 641, 84 A 329, AnnCas1913C 167. Ill. McShane v. Chicago City R. Co., 170 Ill. A. 257. Iowa.-Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 138 Iowa 283, 114 NW 622; Andrews v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Iowa 677, 53 NW 399. Ky.-Bishop v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 77 SW 1099, 25 KyL 1363. Mass.-Vahey v. Boston El. R. Co., 222 Mass. 374, 111 NE 40; Hutchinson v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 219 Mass. 389, 107 NE 271; Olund v. Worcester Cons. St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 544, 92 NE 720. Mo.-Van Natta v. People's St. R., etc., Co., 133 Mo. 13, 34 SW 505; Flucks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 143 Mo. A. 17, 122 SW 348; Wills V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 133 Mo. A. 625, 113 SW 713. N. Y.-Francisco v. Troy, etc., R. Co.. 88 Hun 464, 34 NYS 859. Pa.-Wright v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Pittsb. 116. Wis.-White v. Milwaukee City R: Co., 61 Wis. 536, 21 NW 524. [a] In the absence of municipal or statutory regulation, no speed of a railroad train can be declared negligence as a matter of law, but the question must be left to the jury. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Woods, 96 Ark. 311, 131 SW 869, 33 LRANS 855. [b] Whether it is negligence for a traction car to turn a curve at a rapid rate of speed (1) is a question of fact for the jury. Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co. v. Kowalski, 139 Ill. A. 89; Vahey v. Boston El. R. Co., 222 Mass. 374, 111 NE 40; Partelow v. Newton, etc., St. R. Co., 196 Mass. 24, 81 NE 894; Macy v. New Bedford, etc., St. R. Co., 182 Mass. 291, 65 NE 397; Muehlhausen v. St. Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332, 2 SW 315; Francisco v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 88 Hun 464, 34 NYS 859. (2) It is a question for the jury whether a street railroad company was negligent in running an electric car, the platform of which was crowded with passengers, at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, down grade, and around a sharp curve. Reber v. Pittsburg, etc., Tract. Co., 179 Pa. 339, 36 A 245, 57 AmSR 599. [c] Evidence held insufficient to go to the jury on the issue whether the car was run unreasonably fast over a switch. Olund v. Worcester Cons. St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 544, 92 NE 720. 33. Ark. Robinson v. Little Rock R., etc., Co., 113 Ark. 227, 168 SW 1125 (as a car was rounding a curve); Oliver v. Ft. Smith Light, etc., Co.. 89 Ark. 222, 116 SW 204, 131 AmSR 86. Ill. South Chicago City R. Co. v. Dufresne, 200 Ill. 456, 65 NE 1075 [aff 102 Ill. A. 493]. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Osborne, 157 Ky. 341, 163 SW 189; Louisville. etc., R. Co. v. Beard, 90 SW 944, 28 KyL 921. Mass.-Thayer v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 214 Mass. 234, 101 NE 368, 44 LRANS 1125, AnnCas1914B 865; Olund v. Worcester Cons. St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 544, 92 NE 720. Mich. Dupuis v. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 146 Mich. 151, 109 NW 413 (as a car was rounding a curve). Mo.-Muehlhausen v. St. Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332, 2 SW 315; Choquette v. Southern Electric R. Co., 80 Mo. A. 515. N. J.-Whalen V. Consolidated Tract. Co., 61 N. J. L. 606, 40 A 645, 68 AmSR 723, 41 LRA 836. Pa. Sulger v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 245 Pa. 128, 91 A 235, AnnCas 1916A 143 and note; Rundle v. Slate Belt Electric St. R. Co., 33 Pa. Super. 233. Tex.-Dallas Cons. Electric St. R. Co. v. Stone, (Civ. A.) 166 SW 708. [a] Evidence held insufficient as a matter of law to show negligence on the part of the carrier. Sanderson v. Boston El. R. Co., 194 Mass. 337, 80 NE 515; Bartley v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 148 Mo. 124, 49 SW 840. [b] Direction of verdict for defendant or nonsuit held proper. Ackerstadt v. Chicago City R. Co., 194 Ill. 616, 62 NE 884 [aff 94 Ill. A. 130]; State v. United R., etc., Co., 101 Md. 183, 60 A 249; Holland v. West End St. R. Co., 155 Mass. 387, 29 NE 622; Mooar v. Pittsburg R. Co., 219 Pa. 616, 69 A 76. 34. U. S.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lacey, 185 Fed. 225, 107 CCA 331. Ala.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Brown, 165 Ala. 493, 51 S 565. Ga.-Holleman v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 12 Ga. A. 755, 78 SE 428. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. New.ell, 212 III. 332, 72 NE 416 [app dism 198 U. S. 579 mem, 25 SCt 801 mem, 49 L. ed. 1171 mem]. Kan-Lobner v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 101 P 463. Mass-Morse v. Newton St. R. Co., 213 Mass. 595, 100 NE 1007. Nebr.-Pray v. Omaha St. R. Co.. 44 Nebr. 167, 62 NW 447, 48 AmSR 717. N. Y.-Lehr v. Steinway, etc., R. Co., 118 N. Y. 556, 23 NE 889; Cattano v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 67 App. Div. 615, 73 NYS 1131 [aff 173 N. Y. 565, 66 NE 5631; Gray v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 39 App. Div. 536, 57 NYS 587 [rev on other grounds 165 N. Y. 457, 59 NE 262]. Tex.-Williams .V. International, etc., R. Co., 28 Tex. Civ. A. 503, 67 SW 1085. [a] Whether a carrier is negligent in allowing the platform to become so crowded that a passenger is liable to be pushed off is a question for the jury. Cattano v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 67 App. Div. 615, 73 NYS 1131 [aff 173 N. Y. 565, 66 NE 563]; Kohm v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 104 App. Div. 237, 93 NYS 671, 16 NYAnnCas 315. 35. U. S.-Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Adams, 116 Fed. 324, 54 CCA 196 [rey on other grounds 192 U. S. 440, 24 SCt 408, 48 L. ed. 513]. Ala. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Yates, 169 Ala. 381, 53 S 915. Ark.--Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lindahl, 102 Ark. 533, 145 SW 191, Ann Cas1914A 561; Miles v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 90 Ark. 485, 119 SW 837. Ga.-Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs, 15 Ga. A. 292, 83 SE 934. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Osborne, 157 Ky. 341, 163 SW 189. Co., 16 SW 500. [ 1466] (13) Passing Other Vehicles or Objects. Whether in passing other vehicles or objects near the track the car was operated in a negligent manner, whereby the passenger was struck by such other vehicle or object and injured, is generally a question for the jury.37 Thus it is generally a question N. J.-Field v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 433, 55 A 241. N. Y.-Depew v. New York City R. Co., 112 App. Div. 260, 98 NYS 276; Sheeron v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 89 App. Div. 338, 85 NYS 958; Sheeron v. Coney Island, etc.. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 476, 79 NYS 752; Whitaker v. Staten Island Midland R. Co., 72 App. Div. 468, 76 NYS 548; Lansing v. Coney Island. etc., R. Co., 16 App. Div. 146, 45 NYS 120; Hastings v. Central Crosstown R. Co., 7 App.__Div. 312, 40 NYS 93; Francisco v. Troy, etc., R. Co., 88 Hun 464, 34 NYS 859; Saltzman v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 73 Hun 567, 26 NYS 311 [aff 148 N. Y. 745 mem, 43 NE 989 mem]; Vail v. Broadway R. Co., 6 Misc. 20, 26 NYS 59, 31 AbbNCas 56; Glassberg v. Interurban St. R. Co., 92 NYS 731. Pa.-Brown v. Chester Tract. Co., 230 Pa. 498, 79 A 713; West Philadelphia Pass. R. Co. v. Gallagher, 108 Pa. 524. R. I. Verrone V. Rhode Island Suburban R. Co., 27 R. I. 370, 62 A 512, 114 AmSR 41. S. C.-Doolittle V. Southern R. Co., 62 S. C. 130, 40 SE 133. Tex.-Choate v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 90 Tex. 82, 36 SW 247, 37 SW 319; Yanez V. San Antonio Tract. Co., (Civ. A.) 126 SW 1176; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Choate, 22 Tex. Civ. A. 618, 56 SW 214; Ebert v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 49 SW 1105; Gaunce v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 20 Tex. Civ. A. 33, 48 SW 524. [a] The fact that the passenger cannot exactly describe the sort of a lurch or jerk which threw him from the car will not so discredit his testimony as to prevent the submission of the case to the jury. Louisville R. Co. v. Osborne, 157 Ky. 341, 163 SW 189. [b] Nonsuit held proper.-Nies v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 68 App. Div. 259, 74 NYS 41. 36. U. S.-Delano v. Peirce, 225 Fed. 976, 141 CCA 98; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. White, 101 Fed. 928, 42 ČCA 86, 62 LRA 90; Sprague v. Southern R. Co., 92 Fed. 59, 34 CCA 207. Ala.-Ball v. Mobile Light, etc., R. Co., 146 Ala. 309, 39 S 584, 119 Am SR 32, 9 AnnCas 962. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Holmes, 96 Ark. 339, 131 SW 692; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Pollock, 93 Ark. 240, 123 SW 790; Oliver v. Ft. Smith Light, etc., Co., 89 Ark. 222, 116 SW 204, 131 AmSR 86; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson, 87 Ark. 101, 112 SW 212. Cal. McCurrie V. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Cal. 558, 55 P 324; Dougherty v. Union Tract. Co., 23 Cal. A. 17, 136 P 722. Ga.-Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobs, 15 Ga. A. 292, 82 SE 934. Ill. Wyckoff v. Chicago City R. Co., 234 Ill. 613, 85 NE 237 [aff 136 Ill. A. 342]; Chicago City R. Co. v. Morse, 197 111. 327, 64 NE 304 [aff 98 11. A. 662]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Newell, 113 Ill. App. 263 [aff 212 Ill. 332, 72 NE 416]. Ind. Evansville, etc., R. Co. Mills, 37 Ind. A. 598, 77 NE 608. V. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Kemp, 149 Ky. 344, 149 SW 835; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Colly, 86 SW 536, 27 KyL 730; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Jordan, 76 SW 145, 25 KyL 574. Mass.-Griffin v. Springfield St. R. Co.. 219 Mass. 55, 106 NE 551; Cutts v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 450, 89 NE 21; Farnon v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 180 Mass. 212, 62 NE 254. Mich. Smalley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co.. 131 Mich. 560, 91 NW 1027: Moore v. Saginaw, etc., R. Co., 119 Mich. 613, 78 NW 666; Etson v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 114 Mich. 605, 72 NW 598. Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 721, 36 S 154. Mo.-Daniels v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (A.) 181 SW 599; Farmer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 178 Mo. A. 579. 161 SW 327; Todd v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 126 Mo. A. 684, 105 SW 671; Bowlin v. Union Pac. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 419, 102 SW 631; Scamell v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 504, 77 SW 1021; Dorsey v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 83 Mo. A. 528. N. Y.-Dorr v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 211 N. Y. 369, 105 NE 652, LRA 1915D 368, AnnCas1915C 763 [aff 152 App. Div. 342, 136 NYS 8721; Ayers v. Rochester R. Co., 156 N. Y. 104, 50 NE 960; Murphy v. Interurban St. R. Co., 105 App. Div. 110, 93 NYS 728; Ward v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 126, 90 NYS 897; Harty v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 119, 88 NYS 422; Bradley v. Second Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 284, 54 NYS 256; Grotsch v. Steinway R. Co., 19 App. Div. 130, 45 NYS 1075; Miles v. King, 18 App. Div. 41, 45 NYS 379; Tompkins v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 88 Misc. 20, 150 NYS 219; Goldstuck v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 85 Misc. 24, 147 NYS 42; Starkman v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 83 Misc. 62, 144 NYS 780; Glidden v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 20 NY Wkly Dig 313. Pa-Tilton v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 231 Pa. 63, 79 A 877; Continental Pass. R. Co. v. Swain, 13 Wkly NC 41. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Stewart, (Civ. A.) 164 SW 1059; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, (Civ. A.) 120 SW 500; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, (Civ. A.). 103 SW 239; Hardin v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 100 SW 995. Wash.-Lane V. Spokane Falls, etc., R. Co., 21 Wash. 119, 57 P 367, 75 AmSR 821, 46 LRA 153. Wis.-Harden v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 102 Wis. 213, 78 NW 424. [a] Knowledge by passenger of ordinary jerks and jars. It is matter of common knowledge that jerks and jars ordinarily attend the handling and running of freight trains, and that they are more frequent than in the handling of regular passenger trains, so that it is error to submit to the jury whether one who became a passenger on a freight train had such knowledge. Southern R. Co. v. Crowder, 135 Ala. 417, 33 S 335. [b] Evidence held insufficient to submit question to jury.-Erwin v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 94 Mo. A. 289. 68 SW 88 (demurrer to evidence sustained); Nelson v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.. 25 App. Div. 535, 50 NYS 63; De Yoe v. Seattle Electric Co., 53 Wash. 588, 102 P 446, 104 P 647, 1133. 37. Cal.-Seller v. Market St. R. Co.. 139 Cal. 268, 72 P 1006. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 198 Ill. 462, 64 NE 1011 [aff 99 III. A. 126]; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 106 Ill. A. 98 [rev on other grounds 203 Ill. 225, 67 NE 793]. Ind.-Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. v. Hardendorf, 164 Ind. 403, 72 NE 593 (car on parallel track). R. Mass.-Pomeroy v. Boston, etc., St: Co., 193 Mass. 507, 79 NE 764 (struck by trolley pole). Mo.-Gage V. St. Louis Transit Co., 211 Mo. 139, 109 SW 13 (struck by car on parallel track); Parks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 178 Mo. 108, 77 SW 70, 101 AmSR 425 (car on other track); Seymour v. Citizens' R. Co., 114 Mo. 266, 21 SW 739; Monday v. St. Joseph R., etc., Co., 136 Mo. A. 692, 119 SW 24; Vessels v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 708, 108 SW 578 (passing wagon); Kreimelmann V. Jourdan, 107 Mo. A. 64, 80 SW 323 (struck by car on other track while on the inner footboard). N. J.-Wheeler v. South Orange, etc., Tract. Co., 70 N. J. L. 725, 58 A 927 (struck by trolley pole). N. Y.-Kramer V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 190 N. Y. 310, 83 NE 35 [rev 114 App. Div. 804, 100 NYS 2761; Sheppard v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 146 App. Div. 806, 131 NYS 507; Walsh v. Interurban St. R. Co., 50 Misc. 637, 98 NYS 656; Walker v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 11 NYS 742. Or.-Anderson v. City, etc., R. Co., 42 Or. 505, 71 P 659. Pa.-Simkins v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 182, 90 A 527; Cline v. Pittsburg R. Co., 226 Pa. 586. 75 A 850, 27 LRANS 936; Bumbear v. United Tract. Co., 198 Pa. 198, 47 A 961. Tex.-Boldt v. San Antonio Tract. Co., (Civ. A.) 148 SW 831 (struck by car on other track). [a] Directed verdict for defendant held proper.-Kurts v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 179, 90 A 525. 38. Chapman v. Capital Tract. Co., 37 App. (D. C.) 479; Pell v. Joliet, etc., R. Co., 238 Ill. 510, 87 NE 542 [aff 142 Ill. A. 362]; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Polkey, 203 I. 225, 67 NE 793 (permitting a passenger to ride on the running board while passing through a tunnel); Johnson v. Chicago City R. Co., 174 Ill. A. 148; Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Hoffbauer, 23 Índ. A. 614, 56 NE 54; Shields v. Minneapolis, etc., Electric Tract. Co., 124 Minn. 327, 144 NW 1092, 50 LRA NS 49. 39. Il-Fellows-Kimbrough V. Chicago City R. Co., 272 11. 71, 111 NE 499 [rev 190 Ill. A. 17]; Chicago City R. Co. v. Pural, 224 Ill. 324, 79 NE 686 [aff 127 Ill. A. 652]. Iowa. Mitchell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 138 Iowa 283, 114 NW 622. Mass.-Chaffe v. Consolidated R. Co., 196 Mass. 484, 82 NE 497; Jordan V. Old Colony St. R. Co., 190 Mass. 330, 76 NE 909. Mich. -Congdon v. Detroit, etc., R. Co.. 179 Mich. 175. 146 NW 118: Rouston v. Detroit United R. Co., 151 Mich. 237. 115 NW 62. Miss.--Leake v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 91 Miss. 398, 46 S 68. Mo.-Gillogly v. Dunham, 187 Mo. A. 551, 174 SW 118; Binsbacher v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 1, 82 SW 546; Fullerton v. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co.. 84 Mo. A. 498. N. Y.-Webster v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 115 N. Y. 112, 21 NE 725; Smith v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 59 App. Div. 60, 69 NYS 176; Bowles v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 46 Hun 324 [aff 113 N. Y. 643 mem, 21 NE 414 mem]; Dlabola v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 470, 8 NYS 334 [aff 134 N. Y. 585 mem, 31 NE 628]. Pa.-Palmer v. Warren St. R. Co., 206 Pa. 574, 56 A 49, 63 LRA 507. Tex.-Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. V Day, 50 Tex. Civ. A. 407, 111 SW 663; El Paso Electric R. Co. v. Bolgiano, (Civ. A.) 109 SW 388; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Fowler. (Civ. A.) 93 SW 484. Utah.-Dearden v. San Pedro, etc., R. Co., 33 Utah 147, 93 P 271. Wis.-Feldschneider V. Chicago, 40 etc., R. Co., 122 Wis. 423, 99 NW 1034. [a] Broken train coming together. -Whether the prima facie case of negligence made out by injury to a passenger caused by a train breaking in two parts, and the parts afterward colliding. is overcome is a question for the jury. Larkin V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 118 Iowa 652, 92 NW 891; Feldschneider v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 122 Wis. 423, 99 NW 1034. 40. Cal.-Kimic v. San José Los Gatos Interurban R. Co., 156 Cal. 379, 104 P 986. Ill. Schlauder V. Chicago, etc., Tract. Co., 253 Ill. 154, 97 NE 233 [rev 160 III. A. 309]. Iowa.-Cocke v. Des Moines City R. Co., 155 Iowa 384, 136 NW 221; Parker v. Des Moines City R. Co., 153 Iowa 254, 133 NW 373. AnnCas 1913E 174; Douglass v. Sioux City St. R. Co., 91 lowa 94, 58 NW 1070. Mich.-Van Orman v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 152 Mich. 185, 115 NW 968; Renders v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 144 Mich. 387, 108 NW 368. Mo.-Augustus v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 572, 134 SW 22; Marriott V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 142 Mo. A. 199, 126 SW 231; Hamilton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 114 Mo. A. 504, 89 SW 893. 131 App. Div. 97, 115 NYS 224; Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 485, 86 NYS 1018; Suse v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 80 App. Div. 24, 80 NYS 513; Keegan v. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 297. 54 NYS 391 [aff 165 N. Y. 622, 59 NE 1124]; Watkins v. Atlantic Ave. R. Co., 20 Hun 237; Freeland v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 43 Misc. 132, 88 NYS 264 [rev on other grounds 109 App. Div. 651, 96 NYS 251]; Kaliniak v. Joline, 123 NYS 54. Vt.-Strong v. Burlington Tract. Co., 80 Vt. 34, 66 A 786, 12 LRANS 197. Wis.-Wanzer v. Chippewa Valley Electric R. Co., 108 Wis. 319, 84 NW 423; Heucke v. Milwaukee City R. Co., 69 Wis. 401, 34 NW 243. [a] Directed verdict for defendant held proper.-Sloan v. Detroit United R. Co., 172 Mich. 68. 137 NW 691. [b] Nonsuit held proper.-Downey v. Pittsburg R. Co., 219 Pa. 592, 69 A 71. 42. U. S.-Minahan V. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 138 Fed. 37, 70 CCA 463. etc., R. Co. V. Ark.-St. Louis, Thurman, 110 Ark. 188. 161 SW 1054. Cal.-Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co., 140 Cal. 369, 73 P 1060. Ga.-Carswell V. Macon, etc., R. N. Y.-Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 Barb. 385; Schneider v. Second Ave. R. Co., 59 N. Y. Super. 536, 15 NYS 556 [mod 133 N. Y. 583, 30 NE 752]; Hourney v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 7 NYS 602 [aff 130 N. Y. 641 mem, 29 NE 1033 mem]. Pa.-Goorin V. Allegheny Tract. Co., 179 Pa. 327, 36 A 207. Va.-Washington, etc., R. Co. V. Trimyer, 110 Va. 856, 67 SE 531. [a] Rule or custom as to right of way. Whether there was rule. practice, or custom giving to the cars of one traction company a superior Mich. 518, 96 NW 580. right of way over the cars of another company at a particular crossing is a question of fact, where the evidence is conflicting in an action by a passenger for injuries caused by a collision with a car of the other company. Schmidt v. Chicago City R. Co., 144 Ill. A. 512 [aff 239 Ili. 494, 88 NE 275]. Co., 118 Ga. 826, 45 SE 695. Md.-United R., etc.. Co. v. Dean, 117 Md. 686, 84 A 75; Western Maryland R. Co. v. Shivers, 101 Md. 391, 61 A 618. Mass.-Tobin v. Pittsfield Electric Mich. Schulte v. Michigan Cent. a 41. Cal.-Seigel v. Eisen, 41 Cal. 109. Ill. Math v. Chicago City R. Co., 243 I. 114, 90 NE 235; Ratner v. Chicago City R. Co., 233 Ill. 169, 84 NE 201 [rev 133 Ill. A. 6281: Chicago City R. Co. v. Shreve, 226 Ill. 530. 80 NE 1049 [aff 128 Ill. A. 462]; Chicago City R. Co. v. Bennett, 214 Ill. 26, 73 NE 343; Chicago City R. Co. v. McClain, 211 Ill. 589, 71 NE 1103; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Tuerk, 193 Ill. 385, 61 NE 1087 [aff 90 Ill. A. 105]. Ind. Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Grimm, 25 Ind. A. 494, 57 NE 640. Mass.-Doherty v. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 207 Mass. 27. 92 NE 1026: Wright v. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 203 Mass. 569, 89 NE 1073. Mich. Thurston v. Detroit United R. Co., 137 Mich. 231. 100 NW 395. Mo.-Stauffer V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 SW 1032; Sweeney v. Kansas City Cable R. Co.. 150 Mo. 385, 51 SW 682; Williamson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 133 Mo. A. 375, 113 SW 239. N. J. Brackney v. Public Service Corp., 77 N. J. L. 1, 71 A 149; Walsh v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 641, 60 A 335; Rodinan v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 43, 58 A 1095. N. Y.-Platoff v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 144 App. Div. 273. 128 NYS 1002; Tucker v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., Minn.-Eldridge V. Minneapolis, etc.. R. Co., 32 Minn. 253, 20 NW 151. N. J.-Dusenbury v. North Hudson County R. Co., 66 N. J. L. 44, 48 A 520. son V. N. Y.-Hollahan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 73 App. Div. 164, 76 NYS 751; Pollock v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 60 Hun 584, 15 NYS 189; MatteNew York Cent. R. Co., 62 Barb. 364 [aff 35 N. Y. 487, 91 AmD 67]; McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 47 Barb. 247 [rev on the facts 44 N. Y. 478, 4 AmR 705]; Ludinsky v. New York City R. Co., 53 Misc. 569, 103 NYS 711. N. C.-Cox v. High Point, etc., R. Co., 147 N. C. 353, 61 SE 183. Pa.-Clark v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 24 Pa. Super. 609. S. C.-Broom V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 96 S. C. 368, 80 SE 616; Shelton v. Southern R. Co., 86 S. C. 98. 67 SE 899. Tex.-International, etc., R. Co. v. Sandlin, 57 Tex. Civ. A. 151, 122 SW 60; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Cheatham, 52 Tex. Civ. A. 1, 113 SW 777. Vt.-Parker v. Boston, etc., R., 84 Vt. 329, 79 A 865. Va.-Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. (56 Va.) 230. [a] Directed verdict for plaintiff. 43 dence as to whether the carrier was negligent with respect to setting down a passenger,* such as, whether it was negligent in assisting or in failing to assist a passenger in alighting, or in suddenly -Southern Pac. Co. v. Tarin, 108 43. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Pritchett, 161 Ala. 480, 49 S 782. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Leamons, 82 Ark. 504, 102 SW 363. Cal.-Franklin V. Southern California Motor R. Co., 85 Cal. 63, 24 P 723. Colo.-Posten V. Denver, etc., Tramway Co., 11 Colo. A. 187, 53 P 391. Conn.-Elwood v. Connecticut R., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145, 58 A 751, 1 AnnCas 779. Ill.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Winters, 175 Ill. 293. 51 NE 901 [aff 65 Ill. A. 435] (alighting on wrong side of car); Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Ertrachter, 130 Ill. A. 602 [aff 228 Ill. 114, 81 NE 816]. Ind.-Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Keiter, 175 Ind. 268, 92 NE 982. Ky.-Paducah Tract. Co. v. Tolar, 162 Ky. 50, 171 SW 1009. Mich.-Smalley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 131 Mich. 560, 91 NW 1027. Mo.-McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co., 190 Mo. 85, 88 SW 853; Cobb v. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 SW 310; Johnson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 192 Mo. A. 1, 178 SW 239; Holland v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 476, 137 SW 995; Lucas v. United R. Co., 154 Mo. A. 16, 133 SW 107; Duffy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 104 Mo. A. 235, 78 SW 831. Mont.-Knuckey v. Butte Electric R. Co., 45 Mont. 106, 122 P 280. N. J.-Carroll v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 567, 79 A 293. N. Y.-Flynn v. New York, etc., Tract. Co., 158 App. Div. 169, 143 NYS 24. N. C.-Ruffin v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 142 N. C. 120, 55 SE 86. Okl.-Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Melson, 40 Okl. 1, 134 P 388, AnnCas 1915D 760. Pa.-Gensemer v. Conestoga Tract. Co., 237 Pa. 224, 84 A 901; Neslie v. Second, etc., R. Co., 113 Pa. 300, 6 A 72; McCollum v. Pittsburg R. Co., 51 Pa. Super. 637. Porto Rico.-Gonzalez v. San Juan Light, etc., Co., 5 Porto Rico Fed. 602. S. C.-McKittrick V. Greenville Tract. Co., 88 S. C. 91, 70 SE 414. Tex.-Long v. Red River, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 85 SW 1048. Wash.-Ferrell V. Washington Water Power Co., 83 Wash. 319, 145 P 442. [a] Negligence as to a passenger alighting from a moving train or car (1) may, under the evidence, be a question for the jury. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leamons, 82 Ark. 504, 102 SW 363 (under the direction of the train porter); Posten v. Denver, etc., Tramway Co., 11 Colo. A. 187, 53 P 391 (from slowly moving train); Bartle v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 193 N. Y. 362, 85 NE 1091 [rev 121 App. Div. 72, 105 NYS 522]; Cable v. Southern R. Co., 122 N. Č. 892, 29 SE 377; Hodges v. Southern R. Co., 120 N. C. 555, 27 SE 128; Cooper v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 61 S. C. 345, 39 SE 543. (2) It is a question for the jury whether, considering the age of discretion of a passenger alighting from a car in motion, it was negligence on the conductor's part not to warn her of the danger. Paducah Tract. Co. v. Tolar, 132 Ky. 50, 171 SW 1009. [b] Whether a street car was in motion when plaintiff attempted to 44 45 starting or moving the car while a passenger was alighting, or in suddenly or violently starting the car after stopping just before reaching the alighting place and while a passenger was alighting or alight. San Antonio Tract. Co. V. Hauskins, (Tex. Civ. A.) 148 SW 1100. fact for the jury. Gonzalez v. San Juan Light, etc., Co., 5 Porto Rico Fed. 602. [c] Invitation to leave car.—(1) Whether the acts and conduct of the conductor of an electric car in calling out the name of the station, and in leaving the platform and putting up the fender, amounted to an invitation to a passenger to leave the car, is a question of fact. Elwood v. Connecticut R., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145, 58 A 751, 1 AnnCas 779. (2) Whether language addressed by the conductor to plaintiff amounted to a request, a direction, or an advice to plaintiff to leave the train is for the jury. Lewis v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 145 N. Y. 508, 40 NE 248 [rev 80 Hun 192. 30 NYS 28]. (3) The opening by the conductor of the gates on a car of the pay-as-youenter type may be found by the jury to be an invitation to a passenger to alight. Ferrell v. Washington Water Power Co., 83 Wash. 319, 145 P 442. [d] Warning of dangerous exit.What omission on the part of a carrier to warn passengers of a dangerous place of exit is negligence is for the jury. San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Flory, 45 Tex. Civ. A. 233, 100 SW 200; Flory v. San Antonio Tract. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 89 SW 278. [e] Evidence held too uncertain and contradictory to warrant submitting the issue of negligence to the jury. Baker v. Interurban St. R. Co., 86 NYS 9; San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Hauskins, (Tex. Civ. A.) 148 SW 1100. [f] Peremptory instruction for dence. defendant held required by the eviServiss v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 169 Mich. 564. 135 NW 343. 44. U. S.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wiegel, 191 Fed. 577, 112 CCA 183. Ga.-Southern R. Co. V. Reeves, 116 Ga. 743, 42 SE 1015; Atkinson v. Brantley, 15 Ga. A. 129, 83 SE 773. N. C.-Morarity v. Durham Tract. Co., 154 N. C. 586, 70 SE 938. S. C.-Madden v. Port Royal, etc.. R. Co., 41 S. C. 440, 19 SE 951, 20 SE 65; Simms v. South Carolina R. Co., 27 S. C. 268, 3 SE 301. Tex.-Ft. Worth. etc.. R. Co. V. Spear, (Civ. A.) 107 SW 613; San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Flory, 45 Tex. Civ. A. 233, 100 SW 200; Flory v. San Antonio Tract. Co., (Čiv. A.) 89 SW 278; Campbell v. Alston, (Civ. A.) 23 SW 33. [a] Assisting pregnant woman to alight.-Where a railroad conductor undertakes to assist a pregnant woman passenger to alight from a train at her destination, the question as to whether he was negligent in the act, or exercised extraordinary diligence in so doing, is for the jury to determine. Atkinson v. Brantley, 15 Ga. A. 129, 83 SE 773. an [b] Unusual conditions.-In action for injuries to a female passenger received while alighting from a street car at a place where the ground was steep and sloping, and below the ordinary distance from the running board, whether it was the duty of defendant's conductor to assist plaintiff to alight is a question for the jury. Morarity v. Durham Tract. Co., 154 N. C. 586, 70 SE 938. [c] Conductor previously informed of passenger's physical condition. It is proper to leave to a jury the question whether, when he had previously been informed of it. a conductor should have remembered at the time a passenger alighted that her physical condition called for assistance. Madden V. Port Royal, etc., R. Co., 41 S. C. 440, 19 SE 951, 20 SE 65. [d] Submission of issue held improper, as to whether the conductor alight therefrom is a question of failed to assist a passenger to 45. U. S.-Midland Valley R. Co. v. Page, 182 Fed. 125; McSlopp v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 59 Fed. 341. Ala.-Southern R. Co. v. Norwood. 186 Ala. 49, 64 S 604; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Moore, 163 Ala. 43, 50 S 115 (whether starting was wanton); Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. McGinty, 158 Ala. 410, 48 S 491. Ark. Hill v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 85 Ark. 529, 109 SW 523. Cal.-Murphey v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 2 Cal. A. 275, 83 P 299. D. C.-City, etc., R. Co. v. Svedborg, 20 App. 543 [aff 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935]. Fla. Florida R. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 S 963. Ga.-Killian V. Georgia R., etc., Co., 97 Ga. 727, 25 SE 384. Ill.-Peterson V. Chicago Cons. Tract. Co., 231 Ill. 324, 83 NE 159; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Souders. 178 Ill. 585, 53 NE 408; Keller v. Chicago R. Co., 183 Ill. A. 399. Iowa.-Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100, 141 NW 43; Farrell v. Citizens' Light, etc., Co., 137 Iowa 309, 114 NW 1063. Kan.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wimmer, 72 Kan. 566, 84 P 378, 4 LRANS 140 and note, 7 AnnCas 756 and note. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Larberg, 158 Ky. 44, 164 SW 346; Louisville R. Co. v. Owens, 97 SW 356, 29 KyL 1294 (question of gross negligence); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Deason, 96 SW 1115, 29 KyL 1259; Miller v. South Covington, etc., R. Co., 74 SW 747, 25 KyL 207. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. Rosik, 107 Md. 138, 68 A 511. Mass.-Sholsberg v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 216 Mass. 252, 103 NE 634; Vine v. Berkshire St. R. Co., 212 Mass. 580, 99 NE 473; Garland v. Boston El. R. Co., 210 Mass. 458, 97 NE 97; McGlinchy v. Boston El. R. Co.. 206 Mass. 7, 91 NE 882; McDonough v. Boston El. R. Co., 191 Mass. 509. 78 NE 141: Meade v. Boston El. R. Co., 185 Mass. 327, 70 NE 197; Clement v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 184 Mass. 312. 68 NE 1126; Nichols v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 47 NE 427. Mich.-Braun V. Grand Rapids. etc., R. Co., 183 Mich. 569, 150 NW 144; Reese v. Detroit United R. Co., 159 Mich. 600, 124 NW 539; O'Dea v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 142 Mich. 265, 105 NW 746. Minn. -Street v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 130 Minn. 246. 153 NW 518; Street v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 124 Minn. 517, 145 NW 746. Miss.-Toler v. Yazzo, etc., R. Co., 31 S 788. Mo.-Davis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 185 SW 1170: Stone v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 161 Mo. A. 37. 142 SW 1092; Haskell v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 161 Mo. A. 64. 142 SW 1091; Norris v. Metropolitan St. P. Co., 156 Mo. A. 201, 137 SW 77: Zeiler v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 613, 134 SW 1067; Kinyoun v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 477. 134 SW 15; Cooke v. Springfield Tract. Co., 144 Mo. A. 451, 123 SW 265; Cartlich v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 721, 108 SW 584: Gharst v. St. Louis Transit Co., 115 Mo. A. 403, 91 SW 453: Cramer v. Springfield Tract. Co., 112 Mo. A. 350, 87 SW 24: Gress v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 109 Mo. A. 716. 84 SW 122; Abbitt v. St. Louis Transit Co., 106 Mo. A. 640, 81 SW 484. N. H.-Emery v. Boston, etc, R. Co.. 67 N. H. 434, 36 A 367. N. J.-Oakerson v. Atlantic Coast Electric R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 769. 73 A 496; McCullom v. Atlantic City, etc.. R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 603, 72 A 87; Fenig v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 715, 46 A 602. 46 47 preparing to alight, or in suddenly increasing the speed of a car which had slowed down for the apparent purpose of allowing a passenger to alight and while he was attempting so to do, or in setting down a passenger at an improper time or place," or in failing to provide a reasonably safe place or means for a passenger to alight.50 N. Y.-Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370; Koues v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 86 App. Div. 611, 83 NYS 380; Bessenger v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Div. 32, 79 NYS 1017; Schilling v. Union R. Co., 77 App. Div. 74, 78 NYS 1015; Steinle v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 69 App. Div. 85, 74 NYS 482; Willis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 63 App. Div. 332, 71 NYS 554; Bennett v. Third Ave. R. Co., 40 App. Div. 626, 57 NYS 994; Daly v. Central R. Co., 26 App. Div. 200, 49 NYS 901; Ferry v. Manhattan R. Co., 54 N. Y. Super. 325 [aff 118 N. Y. 497, 23 NE 822]; Frauhauf v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 52 Misc. 135, 101 NYS 781; Schaefer v. Central Crosstown R. Co., 30 Misc. 114, 61 NYS 806; Schiller V. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 26 Misc. 392, 56 NYS 184; Friedman v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 24 Misc. 764, 53 NYS 410 [aff 24 Misc. 773 mem, 54 NYS 1099 mem]; Gordon v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 93 NYS 487. N. C.-Thorp v. Durham Tract. Co., 159 N. C. 33, 74 SE 644; Parlier v. Southern R. Co., 129 N. C. 262, 39 SE 961. Or.-Johnson v. Portland R., etc., Co., 79 Or. 403, 155 P 375; Smitson V. Southern Pac. Co., 37 Ór. 74, 60 P 907. Pa.-White v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 231 Pa. 93, 79 A 982; Skean v. Schuylkill Valley Tract. Co., 32 Pa. Super. 558; Kitler v. People's St. R. Co., 27 Pa. Super. 602; Farr v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 24 Pa. Super. 332; Bensing v. People's Electric St. R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. 142. S. C.-Whitworth v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 101 S. C. 213, 85 SE 402. Tex.-Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. V. Taylor, (Civ. A.) 153 SW 355; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Keeling, (Civ. A.) 142 SW 108; Citizens' R. Co. v. Hall, (Civ. A.) 138 SW 434; Galveston Electric Co. v. Dobbert, (Civ. A.) 127 SW 838; Latimer v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 40 Tex. Civ. A. 614, 90 SW 665; Williams v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 34 Tex. Civ. A. 145, 78 SW 45. Va.-Wickham V. Leftwich, 112 Va. 225, 70 SE 503. Wash.-Breeden v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 60 Wash. 522, 111 P 771. Wis.-Walters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Wis. 367, 89 NW 140; Bading v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 105 Wis. 480. 81 NW 861. [a] Evidence held insufficient: (1) To justify submission of the question to a jury. Grabenstein v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 84 NYS 261. (2) To justify submission to a jury of the question whether the conductor at the time he gave the signal for the car to start had reasonable notice of plaintiff's intention to alight. Masterson v. Buffalo Crosstown St. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499, 94 NE 1086 [rev 136 App. Div. 908, 120 NYS 1134]. [b] What is a reasonable time (1) in which to stop for the purpose of allowing passengers to alight is generally a question for the jury under the circumstances of the particular case. McSloop v. Richmond, etc., Co., 59 Fed. 431; Dilburn v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 156 Ala. 228, 47 S 210; Florida R. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 S 963; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wimmer, 72 Kan. 566, 84 P 378, 4 LRANS 140 and note. 7 AnnCas 756 and note: Smalley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co.. 131 Mich. 560, 91 NW 1027; Machen v. Pittsburg, etc., Pass. R. Co.. 13 Pa. Super. 642. See also supra § 1357. (2) What is a reasonable time and opportunity for a passengen to alight safely and to leave the carrier's premises is generally a question of fact for the jury. 48 [§ 1470] (17) Care as to Persons Accompanying Passengers. Whether or not the carrier was negligent as to a person who was injured while at its station or on a car for the purpose of meeting or accompanying passengers is generally a question for the jury.51 [§ 1471] (18) Proximate Cause of Injury. It is Hill v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 85 Ark. 529, 109 SW 523; Rhoads v. Cornwall, etc., R. Co., 48 Pa. Super. 310; Whitworth v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 101 S. C. 213, 85 SE 402. 46. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. Brabbzson, 87 Ark. 109. 112 SW 222; Davis v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 75 Ark. 165, 86 SW 995; Dallas v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 144 Ky. 737, 139 SW 958; Braun v. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 183 Mich. 569, 150 NW 144; Smith v. Detroit United R. Co., 155 Mich. 466, 119 NW 640; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Keeling, (Tex. Civ. A.) 142 SW 108; Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Strong, (Tex. Civ. A.) 108 SW 394. 47. Ala.-Sweet V. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 136 Ala. 166, 33 S 886. Iowa.-Root v. Des Moines R. Co., 122 Iowa 469, 98 NW 291. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Williams, 99 SW 245, 30 KyL 493. Md. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Jean, 98 Md. 546, 57 A 540. Minn.-Currie V. Mendenhall, 77 Minn. 179, 79 NW 677. Mo.-Grace V. St. Louis R. Co., 156 Mo. 295, 56 SW 1121; Cobb v. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 SW 310. N. Y.-Nichols v. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 131, 97 AmD 780; Crow v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 70 App. Div. 202, 75 NYS 377 [aff 174 N. Y. 539, 66 NE 1106]; Guntzer v. Yonkers R. Co., 51 App. Div. 222, 64 NYS 857; Newton v. Central Vermont R. Co., 80 Hun 491, 30 NYS 488 [aff 151 N. Y. 624 mem, 45 NE 1133 mem]. Pa.-Mitchell V. Electric Co., 12 Pa. Super. 472. Tract. S. C.-Cooper v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 61 S. C. 345, 39 SE 543. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Harris, 103 Tex. 422. 128 SW 897 [aff (Civ. A.) 120 SW 500]. Wash.-Weir v. Seattle Electric Co., 41 Wash. 657, 84 P 597. 48. Ala.-Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Cox, 173 Ala. 629. 55 S 909 (beyond station); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, 172 Ala. 480, 55 S 237 (beyond flag station); Mobile Light, etc., Co. v. Walsh. 146 Ala. 290, 40 S 559, 9 AnnCas 852 and note; Alabama Great Western R. Co. v. Arrington, 1 Ala. A. 385, 56 S 78. Ga. Miller v. East Tennessee, etc.. R. Co., 93 Ga. 630, 21 SE 153; Atkinson v. Kennedy, 13 Ga. A. 273, 79 SE 84. Mass.-Floytrup v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 163 Mass. 152, 39 NE 797 (before reaching station). Minn.-Larson v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 85 Minn. 387, 88 NW 994. Miss. Harkness v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 33 S 77. Mo.-Dye v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Mo. A. 254, 115 SW 497; Talbot v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. A. 291. N. C.-Anderson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 161 N. C. 462, 77 SE 402. Pa. Case v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 191 Pa. 450, 43 A 319; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. McCormick, 124 Pa. 427, 16 A 848. R. I.-Boss v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 15 R. I. 149, 1 A 9. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers. 16 Tex. Civ. A. 19, 40 SW 201. Wash. Sullivan v. Seattle Electric Co., 44 Wash. 53, 86 P 786; Owen v. Washington. etc., R. Co., 29 Wash. 207, 69 P 757. Wis.-Wolf v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 131 Wis. 335, 111 NW 514. road company is negligent in not warning the passenger that the station has not been reached, is a question for the jury. Atkinson v. Kennedy, 13 Ga. A. 273, 79 SE 84. 49. U. S.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Wiegel, 191 Fed. 577, 112 CCA 183. D. C.-Capital Tract. Co. V. Wathen, 35 App. 577 (excavation near track). Ill-Lakin v. South Side El. R. Co., 178 Ill. A. 176; Lakin v. South Side El. R. Co., 148 Ill. A. 268. Ky-Sweet V. Louisville R. Co.. 113 Ky. 15, 67 SW 4, 23 KyL 2279 (hole in street at place of discharging passenger). Mass.-Brisbin V. Boston El. R. Co., 207 Mass, 553, 93 NE 572; Bethmann v. Old Colony R. Co., 155 Mass. 352, 29 NE 587; McKimble v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 139 Mass. 542, 2 NE 97. Mich. Whitmore v. Detroit United R. Co., 185 Mich. 46, 151 NW 651. Mo.-MacDonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 374, 83 SW 1001. N. H.-Harrington v. Manchester St. R. Co., 76 N. H. 575, 82 A 720. N. J.-Cullen v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 85 N. J. L. 708, 90 A 283; Fielders v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 A 533 [rev on other grounds 68 N. J. L. 343, 53 A 404, 54 A 822, 59 LRA 455, 96 AmSR 552]. N. Y.-Speck v. International R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802, 118 NYS 71; Truesdell v. Erie R. Co.. 119 App. Div. 371, 104 NYS 243; Hancock v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 100 App. Div. 161, 91 NYS 601 [aff 184 N. Y. 540 mem, 76 NE 1096 mem]. N. C.-Ruffin v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 142 N. C. 120, 55 SE 86. S. C.-Singletary v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 88 S. C. 565, 71 SE 57. Tex.-Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thornsberry, 17 SW 521 (insufficient lighting of depot); International, etc.. R. Co. v. Cruseturner, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 181, 98 SW 423; Eddy v. Still, 3 Tex. Civ. A. 346, 22 SW 525. Wash.-Murray v. Seattle Electric Co.. 50 Wash. 444, 97 P 458. Wis.-Skow v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 141 Wis. 21, 123 NW 138. 50. U. S. Thompson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 189 Fed. 723, 111 CCA 261 (snow and ice on ear steps). Ala.-Atlanta, etc., R. Co. V. Wheeler, 154 Ala. 530, 46 S 262 (placing a footstool on uneven ground). Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Mount, 125 Ky. 593, 101 SW 1182, 31 KyL 210. Mo.-Craig v. United R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 616, 158 SW 390 (slippery car steps); Vancleve v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 107 Mo. A. 96, 80 SW 706 (mud on car step). Pa-Sutton v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 Pa. 523, 79 A 719 (ice on car step); McNerney V. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 27 Pa. Super. 168. S. C.-Singletary v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 88 S. C. 565, 71 SE 57. Tex.-Missouri, etc.. R. Co. V. Kemp, (Civ. A.) 173 SW 532 (whether step box should have been provided); St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. V. Gresham, (Tex. Civ. A.) 140 SW 483; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Sherrill, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 116, 72 SW 429. Wash.-Migge v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 75 Wash. 197, 134 P 815; McCormick v. Seattle Electric Co., 49 Wash. 652, 96 P 220. 51. Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 P 606, 51 LRA 121. Ga. Harris v. Central R. Co., 78 Ga. 525, 3 SE 355. Ky.-Bishop V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 77 SW 1099, 25 KyL 1363. [a] Not warning passenger that stop was not at station.-Where a train stops short of the station after its name has been called and a passenger gets off in the darkness and Minn. Street v. Chicago, etc., R. falls into a ditch, whether the rail- I Co.. 124 Minn. 517, 145 NW 746. |