tive,73 and it also must not be abstract," or conflicting, inconsistent, or contradictory.75 Harmless error. Mere errors of form or phraseInd. A. 132, 89 NE 413; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grimm, 25 Ind. A. 494, 57 NE 640; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Iowa 13, 144 NW 587; Hoffman v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 157 Iowa 655, 139 NW 65, AnnCas 1915C 905; Johnston v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa 114, 119 NW 286; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ashley, 169 Ky. 330, 183 SW 921, LRA1916E 763; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Meyer, (Ky.) 119 SW 183; Lockwood v. Boston El. R. Co., 200 Mass. 537, 86 NE 24, 22 LRANS 488; Comerford v. New York, etc., R. Co., 181 Mass. 528, 63 NE 936; Marshall V. Wabash R. Co., 184 Mich. 593, 151 NW 696; Price v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 220 Mo. 435, 119 SW 932, 132 AmSR 588; Joyce v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 SW 21; Logan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 183 Mo. 582, 82 SW 126; Klutts v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Mo. 642; Davis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Mo. A.) 177 SW 1097; Roark v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 163 Mo. A. 705, 147 SW 499; Spaulding v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 129 Mo. A. 607, 107 SW 1049; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Sue, 25 Nebr. 772, 41 NW 801; Lyle v. Manhattan R. Co., 3 Silv. Sup. 275, 6 NYS 325 [aff 127 N. Y. 668 mem, 28 NE 254 mem]; Colegrove v. New York, etc., R. Co., 13 N. Y. Super. 382 [rev on other grounds 20 N. Y. 492, 75 AmD 418]; Barnes v. Southern R. Co., 168 N. Č. 667, 84 SE 1030; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Farris, (Tex. Civ. A.) 166 SW 463; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Pitkin, (Tex. Civ. A.) 158 SW 1035; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Little, (Tex. Civ. A.) 157 SW 1185; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Marshall, (Tex. Civ. A.) 140 SW 508; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Boleman, (Tex. Civ. A.) 112 SW 805; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Cunningham, 48 Tex. Civ. A. 1, 106 SW 407 (as to person accompanying passenger); Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Wilkins, (Tex. Civ. A.) 98 SW 202; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Haney, (Tex. Civ. A.) 94 SW 386; Harkins v. Seattle Electric Co., 53 Wash. 184, 101 P 836; Cogswell v. West St., etc., Electric R. Co., 5 Wash. 46, 31 P 411. (2) As to injury to an alighting passenger. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Baddeley, 54 Ill. 19, 5 AmR 71; Fieldstack v. Chicago City R. Co., 184 Ill. A. 75; Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Byrum, 48 Ill. A. 41 [aff 153 II. 131, 38 NE 578]; Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Smalley, 44 Ind. A. 172, 88 NE 867; Vultee v. Saginaw-Bay City R. Co., 186 Mich. 523, 152 NW 980; Hastings V. Boland, 136 Mich. 240, 98 NW 1017; Brown v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 161 Mo. A. 236, 143 SW 561; Brown v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 87 S. C. 314, 69 SE 510; Southworth v. Pecos, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 118 SW 861; Dallas Cons. Electric St. R. Co. v. Chase, (Tex. Civ. A.) 118 SW 783; Northern Texas Tract. Co. v. Danforth. 53 Tex. Civ. A. 419, 116 SW 147; Rambie v. San Antonio. etc.. R. Co.. 45 Tex. Civ. A. 1022, 100 SW 1022; McIlwaine v. Tacoma R., etc., Co., 72 Wash. 184, 129 P 1093. (3) As to the duty of defendant carrier to stop its train SO that plaintiff could alight on the platform. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Briggs, 87 Ark. 581, 113 SW 644. (4) As to injury to boarding passenger. Formiller v. Detroit United R. Co., 164 Mich. 653, 130 NW 347; International, etc.. R. Co. v. Kruger, (Tex. Civ. A.) 163 SW 677; International, etc., R. Co. v. Anchonda, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 24, 75 SW 557. (5) As to assault by an employee. Johnson v. Washington Water Power Co., 62 Wash. 619, 114 P 453. (6) As to injury by a fellow passenger. Norfolk. etc.. R. Co. v. Birchfield, 105 Va. 809, 54 SE 879. [b] Instructions held misleading: (1) In general. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, 172 Ala. 480, 55 S 237; ology in instructions, such as are not calculated to mislead the jury or to prejudice the V. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Girod, 164 AmSR 25 (struck by another car): Mobile Light, etc., Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40 S 560; (stopping the car at an unsafe place); City, etc., R. Co. v. Svedborg, 20 App. (D. C.) 543 [aff 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935]; Georgia, etc., R. Co. v. Thigpen, 141 Ga. 90, 80 SE 626; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Ga. 107, 74 SE 839 (as to a safe place to alight); Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Korbe, 175 Ind. 450, 93 NE 5, 94 NE 768 [rev (A.) 90 NE 483]; Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. Eakins, 103 Ky. 465, 45 SW 529, 46 SW 496, 47 SW 872, 20 KyL 736, 933; Mabry v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 214 Mass. 463, 102 NE 309 (alighting from moving car); McDonald v. City Electric Co., 137 Mich. 392, 100 NW 592; Hurley v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 120 Mo. A. 262, 96 SW 714; Corum v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 113 Mo. A. 631, 88 SW 143; Deming v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 80 Mo. A. 152; Buck v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 276, 6 NYS 524; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar. 49 Tex. Civ. A. 12, 108 SW 500; Martin v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 56 SW 1011: Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Strong, (Tex. Cr.) 108 SW 394. (5) As to the condition of the car platform. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Trader, 106 Md. 635. 68 A 12 (snow and ice on the platform). (6) In an action for injuries caused by fellow passengers. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Rudy, 118 Md. 42, 84 A 241; Twichell v. Pecos, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 131 SW 243. (7) In an action for injury to an elevator passenger. Masonic Fraternity Temple Assoc. v. Collins, 210 II. 482, 71 NE 396 [aff 110 111. A. 504]; Klein v. Fraser, 169 App. Div. 812, 155 NYS 848. (8) As to damages. Citizens' Pass. R. Co. v. Pank. 7 Ky. Op. 663. Presumptions and burden of proof see infra 1479. 73. Birmingham R., etc., Co. V. King, 149 Ala. 504, 42 S 612. See also Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Mason, 144 Ala. 387, 39 S 590, 6 AnnCas 929 (holding, however, that it does not follow that the giving of such charge constitutes reversible error). See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1600]. a 74. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Woods, 96 Ark. 311, 131 SW 869, 33 LRANS 855; Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849 (holding that the instruction in question should not be taken abstractly); Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 11 S 101, 16 LRA 627. also Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Mason, 144 Ala. 387, 39 S 590, 6 AnnCas 929 (holding, however, that the abstractness of a charge stating a correct proposition of law is not fatal). See 75. U. S.-Cavin v. Southern Pac. Co., 136 Fed. 592, 69 CCA 366 [aff 144 Fed. 348, 75 CCA 350]. Md.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. N. Y.-Stern v. Westchester Electric R. Co., 99 App. Div. 491, 90 NYS 870. Tex.-Parvin v. International, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 54 SW 638 (held contradictory as to the degree of care required); Missouri, etc., R. Co. Brown, (Civ. A.) 39 SW 326. V. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1604]. [a] Instructions held not conflicting, inconsistent, cr contradictory.St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wright, 105 Ark. 269, 150 SW 706; Roberts v. Sierra R. Co., 14 Cal. A. 180. 111 P 519, 527; Wiggin v. Ayres, 2 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 184; Chicago City R. Co. v. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, 68 NË 1087 [aff 102 Ill. A. 202]; Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Hockett, 159 Ind. 677, 66 NE 39; Hoffman v. Cedar Rapids, etc.. R. Co., 157 Iowa 655, 139 NW 165, Ann Cas1915C 905: Devine v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 Iowa 692, 69 NW 1042; Bolton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 177 Mo. 92, 72 SW 530; Feary v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 162 Mo. 75, 62 SW 452; Brod v. St. Louis Transit Co., 115 Mo. A. 202, 91 SW 993; Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 459, 78 SW 838 (holding that an instruction declaring it negligence, after stopping a street car to let on a passenger, to start it before he had a reasonable time "to get upon said car and to a place of safety therein," was proper, and was not inconsistent with an instruction stating the duty to hold the cars stationary a reasonable time to enable persons "safely to board such cars"); Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Farmer, (Tex. Civ. A.) 108 SW 729; Wickham v. Leftwich, 112 Va. 225, 70 SE 503. 76. Ala. Southern R. Co. v. Burgess, 143 Ala. 364, 42 S 35. Ark.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. V. Daniels, 98 Ark. 352, 136 SW 651; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Price, 83 Ark. 437, 104 SW 157. Cal. Fisher v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 89 Cal. 399, 26 P 894. Ga. Seaboard Air-Line R. Co. v. Bradley, 125 Ga. 193, 54 SE 69, 114 AmSR 196; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Johnston, 106 Ga. 130, 32 SE 78; Central R. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770. Ill. Chicago City R. Co. v. Smith, 226 Ill. 178, 80 NE 716 [aff 124 Ill. A. 627]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dickson, 143 Ill. 368, 32 NE 380; East St. Louis R. Co. v. Gray, 135 Ill. A. 642. Ind.-Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Smalley, 44 Ind. A. 172, 88 NE 867. Ky.--Wilder v. Louisville R. Co., 157 Ky. 17, 162 SW 557; Louisville R. Co. v. Wellington, 137 Ky. 719, 126 SW 370, 128 SW 1077; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Popp, 96 Ky. 99, 27 SW 992, 16 KyL 369. Mo.-Loftus v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 220 Mo. 470, 119 SW 942; Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617, 77 SW 736; Jackson v. Grand Avenue R. Co., 118 Mo. 199, 24 SW 192; Furnish v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 438, 13 SW 1044, 22 AmSR 781; Ridenhour v. Kansas City Cable K. Co., 102 Mo. 270, 13 SW 889, 14 SW 760; Davis v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 177 SW 1097; Green v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 122 Mo. A. 647, 99 SW 28; Barr v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. A. 425, 90 SW 107; Aston v. St. Louis Transit Co., 105 Mo. A. 226, 79 SW 999; Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 442, 80 SW 360; Maxey v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 95 Mo. A. 303, 68 SW 1063. N. J.-Gellatty v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 86 N. J. L. 416, 92 A 279. Tex.-Gallagher v. Bowie, 66 Tex. 265, 17 SW 407; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Boleman, (Civ. A.) 112 SW 805; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Haynes, (Civ. A.) 86 SW 934; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 112, 72 SW 81; Central Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hoard, (Civ. A.) 49 SW 142; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Miller, 15 Tex. Civ. A. 428, 39 SW 583. Utah.-Mathis V. Southern Pac. Co., 31 Utah 507, 88 P 668. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1809]. [a] Illustrations.—(1) The expression "a high degree of care" is not the legal equivalent of reasonable care, and an instruction that the former must be exercised, when the duty of defendant was to use the latter, is technical error which is. however, harmless in a case of the handling of violent explosives, where reasonable care is necessarily a high degree of care. Gellatty v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 86 N. J. L. 416, 92 A 279. (2) The use of the word "ample" instead of the word "sufficient," in an instruction as to the length of time that a train should stop at a station, in order to permit passengers to alight, is not reversi Instructions as a whole. To be sufficient, an in struction should be complete in itself; but the charge is to be considered as a whole, and the fact that one part of it, considered separately, might be open to objection ordinarily does not vitiate it, if it is correct in its entirety.78 But an erroneous ble error, although the word "sufficient" is more appropriate. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Haynes, (Tex. Civ. A.) 86 SW 934. (3) An instruction, in an action for damages for injuries received while attempting to board a car, that if, while plaintiff was boarding a car, defendant's motorman started the car, so as to drag plaintiff from the platform from which defendant was accustomed to receive passengers, thereby injuring him, plaintiff was entitled to recover, required the jury to find facts constituting negligence, and the omission of the word "negligence" was not erroneous. Barr V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. A. 425, 90 SW 107. (4) Where a street car company was entitled to an instruction that it was not guilty of negligence unless a car had "stopped" when a passenger attempted to alight, the use of the term "stopped still" was no abuse of the right. Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617, 77 SW 736. 77. Tri-City R. Co. V. Widenhoeft, 118 Ill. A. 581; Buck v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 276, 6 NYS 524. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1777]. [a] An omission in an instruction is harmless where the proof shows a clear case of liability against defendant. Tri-City R. Co. v. Wiedenhoeft, 118 Ill. A. 581. 78. U. S.-Central Vermont R. Co. v. Cauble, 228 Fed. 876, 143 CCA 274; Southern Pac. Co. v. Schuyler, 135 Fed. 1015, 68 CCA 409 (as to care required in regard to condition of tracks). Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leamons, 82 Ark. 504, 102 SW 363; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Hickey, 81 Ark. 579, 99 SW 839; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cleere, 76 Ark. 377, 88 SW 995; Barringer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 73 Ark. 548, 85 SW 94, 87 SW 814; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Blackburn, 15 SW 469; Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459, 11 SW 690. Cal. Cody v. Market St. R. Co., 148 Cal. 90, 82 P 666; Roberts v. Sierra R. Co., 14 Cal. A. 180, 111 P 519, 527; French v. Pacific Electric R. Co., 1 Cal. A. 401, 82 P 395; Tobin v. Omnibus Cable Co., 4 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 214, 34 P 124. Colo-Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. v. Marr, 26 Colo. A. 48, 141 P 142. Fla. Florida R. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 S 963. Ga.-Georgia R., etc., Co. V. Wheeler, 141 Ga. 363, 80 SE 993; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Ga. 107, 74 SE 839; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Tice, 124 Ga. 459, 52 SE 916, 4 AnnCas 200 and note; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Reeves, 123 Ga. 697, 51 SE 610; Western, etc., R. Co. v. Burnham, 123 Ga. 28, 50 SE 984; Macon Cons. St. R. Co. v. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212, 38 SE 756. Ill-East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Zink, 229 Ill. 180, 82 NE 283; Chicago City R. Co. v. Smith, 226 Ill. 178, 80 NE 716 [aff 124 Ill. A. 627]; Masonic Fraternity Temple Assoc. v. Collins, 210 I11. 482, 71 NE 396 [aff 110 II. A. 504] (elevator passenger); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 Ill. 67, 33 NE 960. Ky. South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 86 SW 970, 27 KyL 811. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 A 969. Mass.-Isbell v. Pittsfield Electric St. R. Co., 196 Mass. 296, 82 NE 3; Marshall v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 195 Mass. 284, 81 NE 195. Mich.-Marshall v. Wabash R. Co., 184 Mich. 593, 151 NW 696; Burgess v. Stowe, 134 Mich. 204, 96 NW 29 (elevator passenger). V. St. Mo.-Joyce v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 SW 21; Rearden v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 215 Mo. 105, 114 SW 961; Grace v. St. Louis R. Co., 156 Mo. 295, 56 SW 1121; Smith v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 108 Mo. 243, 18 SW 971; Owens v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 95 Mo. 169, 8 SW 350, 6 AmSR 39; Muehlhausen Louis R. Co., 91 Mo. 332, 2 SW 315; Dye v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Mo. A. 254, 115 SW 497; Skiles v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. A. 162, 108 SW 1082; Randolph v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 620, 102 SW 1085; Nelson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 113 Mo. A. 702, 88 SW 1119; Ilges v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 529, 77 SW 93; Murphy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 96 Mo. A. 272, 70 SW 159. N. J.-Nirk v. Jersey City, etc., St. R. Co., 75 N. J. L. 642, 68 A 158. N. Y.-Kay v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 466, 51 NYS 724 [rev on other grounds 163 N. Y. 447, 57 NE 751]; McCabe v. Manhattan R. Co., 3 Silv. Sup. 324, 6 NYS 418. Compare Gilbertson v. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 14 App. Div. 294, 43 NYS 782. N. C.-Ruffin v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 142 N. C. 120, 55 SE 86. Pa.-Millwood Coal, etc., Co. V. Madison, 1 Pa. Cas. 122, 2 A 39; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Daugherty, 11 Wkly NC 437. S. C.-Jernigan v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 102 S. C. 62, 86 SE 198; Anderson v. South Carolina, etc., R. Co., 81 S. C. 1, 61 SE 1096. Tenn. Memphis St. R. Co. v. Norris, 108 Tenn. 632, 69 SW 325. Tex.-Conwill v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 85 Tex. 96, 19 SW 1017; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Thornsberry, 17 SW 521; International, etc., R. Co. v. Ford, (Civ. A.) 118 SW 1137; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Morrison, 46 Tex. Civ. A. 186, 102 SW 143; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Easton, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 95, 97 SW 833; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Parks, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 480, 90 SW 343; Johnson v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. A. 616, 66 SW 906; International, etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 587, 50 SW 732; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Richards, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 203, 49 SW 687: Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Humphries, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 28, 48 SW 201; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Killebrew, (Civ. A.) 20 SW 1005 [rev 20 SW 182]. Wash.-Gilmore v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 29 Wash. 150, 69 P 743. Wis.-Werner v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 Wis. 300, 81 NW 416; Hemmingway v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 72 Wis. 42, 37 NW 804, 7 AmSR 823. [a] Thus, an instruction that the undertaking of a railroad company is to carry passengers safety to their destination is not misleading when taken in connection with an instruction that the greatest degree of care is that consistent with the mode of transportation, and not the utmost degree of care of which the mind can conceive. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grimm, 25 Ind. A. 494, 57 NE 640. Construction as a whole generally see Trial [38 Cyc 1778]. Error cured by giving other in 81 instruction is not cured by a subsequent contradictory instruction,79 unless the latter makes direct reference to, and withdraws or qualifies, the erroneous instruction;80 or by an instruction which does not correct the fault of the erroneous instruction,8 or which has no relation to it;82 and it has been held that each instruction must state the law correctly as far as it goes, and that, if an instruction erroneously stating the law is given, it is reversible error, although the proper limitations are stated in other instructions.83 structions generally see Cyc 1782]. 85 tion need not ordinarily be given in the exact language in which it is requested; it is sufficient if it is covered in substance; and, in the absence of a statute or rule of court prohibiting it, the court may modify a defective or erroneous instruction requested, and give it in its modified form,87 provided that, as modified, the instruction is not an improper statement of the law as applied to the facts of the case.88 Where a requested instruction contradicts correct and appropriate instructions already given, it is error to give it without modification. 89 It is not error to refuse a requested instruction on matters already substantially covered by other instructions.90 Requested instructions are also properly refused, if as applied to the facts of Trial [38 | ton Electric Co. v. Nelson, 34 Tex. 79. McDonald V. City Electric Co., 137 Mich. 392, 100 NW 592; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor, 69 Miss. 710, 11 S 101, 16 LRA 627; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mills, 27 Tex. Civ. A. 245, 65 SW 74. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1783 text and note 831. 80. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mills, 27 Tex. Civ. A. 245, 65 SW 74. 81. Abney v. Indiana Union Tract. Co., 41 Ind. A. 53, 83 NE 387. 82. Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 147 N. C. 315, 61 SE 171, 19 LRANS 1028. 83. Rabner v. Chicago City R. Co., 233 Ill. 169, 84 NE 201 [rev 133 Ill. A. 628]. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1782 text and note 81]. 84. Requests for instructions generally see Trial [38 Cyc 1690]. 85. U. S.-St. Louis Transit Co. v. Thompson, 137 Fed. 713, 70 CCA 405. Ala-Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Bullard, 157 Ala. 618, 47 S 578. Ga. Southern R. Co. v. Nappier, 138 Ga. 31, 74 SE 778; Georgia Southern, etc., R. Co. v. Overstreet, 17 Ga. A. 629, 87 SE 909. Ill-North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Palkey, 203 Ill. 225, 67 NE 793; Schroeder v. East St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 186 Ill. A. 582; Gannon v. Chicago R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 124; Chicago City R. Co. v. Flynn, 131 Ill. A. 502; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Stonecipher, 90 Ill. A. 511. Iowa.-Cohen v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 141 Iowa 469, 119 NW 964. R. Ky.-Houghton v. Louisville Co.. 81 SW 695, 26 KyL 393. Md.-Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Nugent, 86 Md. 349, 38 A 779, 39 LRA 161. Mass.-Thayer v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 214 Mass. 234, 101 NE 368, 44 LRANS 1125, AnnCas1914B 865. Mich.-Keeley v. City Electric R. Co., 168 Mich 79, 133 NW 1085. Mo.-Orcutt v. Century Bldg. Co., 201 Mo. 424, 99 SW 1062, 8 LRANS 929; Behen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 186 Mo. 430, 85 SW 346; Sharp v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 SW 93; Ely v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 77 Mo. 34; Fornoff v. Columbia Taxicab Co., 179 Mo. A. 620, 162 SW 699; Bruce v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. A. 204, 116 SW 447. Nebr. Shanahan v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Nebr. 637, 134 NW 276. N. Y.-Brown v. Manhattan R. Co., 82 App. Div. 222, 81 NYS 755; Kantrowitz v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 63 App. Div. 65, 71 NYS 394; Savage v. Third Ave. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 556, 51 NYS 1066; Lamline v. Hous ton, etc., R. Co., 14 Daly 144, 6 NYSt 248; Ganiard V. Rochester City, etc.. R. Co., 7 NYSt 103. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. V. Middleton, (Civ. A.) 172 SW 1114; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Guess, (Civ. A.) 154 SW 1060; Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. Carpenter, (Civ. A.) 132 SW 837: Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Gerren, 57 Tex. Civ. A. 34, 121 SW 905; International, etc., R. Co. v. Washington, 54 Tex. Civ. A. 166, 117 SW 992; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, (Civ. A.) 103 SW 239; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, (Civ. A.) 93 SW 195; Hous Utah.-Major V. Oregon ShortLine R. Co., 21 Utah 141, 59 P 222. Va. Norfolk-Southern R. Co. v. Tomlinson, 116 Va. 153, 81 SE 89. Wash.-Gilcher v. Seattle Electric Co., 69 Wash. 78, 124 P 218. Wis.-Hardy v. Milwaukee St. R. Co., 89 Wis. 183, 61 NW 771. [a] A charge on exemplary damages, when requested, is proper in an action against the carrier for assault and battery on a passenger in a street car who was maliciously assaulted by the conductor. Ickenroth v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 597, 77 SW 162. [b] Where the question of the ownership of railroad tracks is a controverted and vital issue in a case, it is error to refuse to instruct the jury that, if they believe from the evidence "that the passenger train upon which plaintiff was riding at the time in question was upon a track which was not owned or controlled at said time by the defendant, then as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot recover," and it is likewise improper to refuse to submit to the jury a special interrogatory on the same subject. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 112 Ill. A. 152, 155. 86. Hoffman v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 157 Iowa 655, 139 NW 165, AnnCas1915C 905; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Johnston, (Tex. Civ. A.) 94 SW 162. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1704]. 87. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Leflar, 104 Ark. 528, 149 SW 530; Barringer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 73 Ark. 548, 85 SW 94, 87 SW 814. Cal.-Roberts v. Sierra R. Co., 14 Cal. A. 180, 111 P 519, 527. Ill-Chicago City R. Co. v. Heydenburg. 118 Ill. A. 387; Trembley v. Tri-City R. Co., 113 Ill. A. 56. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Fox, 11 Bush 495. Mo.-Price v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 220 Mo. 435, 119 SW 932, 132 AmSR 588; Williamson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 202 Mo. 345, 100 SW 1072; McCaffrey v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 192 Mo. 144, 90 SW 816; Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 SW 1069; Chitty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 166 Mo. 435, 65 SW 959; Kinyoun v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 479, 134 SW 15; Flynn v. St. Louis Transit Co., 113 Mo. A. 185, 87 SW 560. Nev. Schafer v. Gilmer, 13 Nev. 330. Pa.-Becker v. Buffalo, etc., Tract. Co., 52 Pa. Super. 93. Tex.-Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Worthman, 73 Tex. 25, 10 SW 741, 3 LRA 368. Va.-Roanoke R., etc., Co. v. Sterrett, 108 Va. 533, 62 SE 385, 128 AmSR 971, 19 LRANS 316. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1720]. 88. Gannon v. Chicago R. Co., 185 V. Ill. A. 124; Krock v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 398, 101 NE 968. 89. Steptoe v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 119 Ark. 75, 177 SW 417. 90. U. S.-City, etc., R. Co. Svedborg, 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935 [aff 20 App. (D. C.) 543]; Southern Pac. Co. v. Schuyler, 135 Fed. 1015, 68 CCA 409; Doyle v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 82 Fed. 869, 27 CCA 264. Ariz.-Southern Pac. Co. v. Hogan, 13 Ariz. 34, 108 P 240, 29 LRANS 813. Ark. Midland Valley R. Co. V. Hamilton, 84 Ark. 81, 104 SW 540. D. C.-Dixon v. Great Falls, etc., R. Co., 43 App. 206. Ill. Frank Parmelee Co. V. Wheelock, 224 III. 194, 79 NE 652 [aff 127 Ill. A. 500]; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Lieserowitz, 197 Ill. 607, 64 NE 718 [aff 99 Ill. A. 591]; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Williams, 140 Ill. 275, 29 NE 672; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Treat, 75 Ill. A. 327 [aff 179 Ill. 576, 54 NE 290]. Ind. Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288, 23 NE 774. Iowa.--Andrews v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 86 Iowa 677, 53 NW 399. Kan.-Peterson v. Baker, 78 Kan. 337, 97 P 373. Mich.-Greenfield v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 133 Mich. 557, 95 NW 546. Mo.-Grace V. St. Louis R. Co., 156 Mo. 295, 56 SW 1121; Baskett v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 123 Mo. A. 725, 101 SW 138. N. Y. Ferry v. Manhattan R. Co., 118 N. Y. 497, 23 NE 822 [aff 54 N. Y. Super. 325]; McCherry v. Snare, etc., Co., 130 App. Div. 241, 114 NYS 674 [aff 198 N. Y. 532 mem, 92 NE 1090 mem]; Frank v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 91 App. Div. 485, 86 NYS 1018; Lyle v. Manhattan R. Co., 3. Silv. Sup. 275, 6 NYS 325 [aff 127 N. Y. 668 mem, 28 NE 254 mem]. Or.-Anderson v. City, etc., R. Co. 42 Or. 505, 71 P 659. S. C.-Hull v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 278, 57 SE 28, 10 LRANS 1213. Tex.-Kansas, etc., R. Co. v. Dorough, 72 Tex. 108, 10 SW 711; International, etc., R. Co. v. Duncan, 55 Tex. Civ. A. 440, 121 SW 362; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Berry, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 521, 109 SW 393; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Alberti, 47 Tex. Civ. A. 32, 103 SW 699: Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Byrd, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 315, 89 SW 991; International, etc., R. Co. v. Satterwhite, 19 Tex. Civ. A. 170, 47 SW 41; Durnett v. Gulf City R., etc., Co., (Civ. A.) 37 SW 336; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, 12 Tex. Civ. A. 203, 33 SW 669. [a] For instance, (1) a refusal to charge that defendant cannot be guilty of wantonness or willfulness unless it has been guilty of misconduct or malice is not prejudicial, where the court charged that it takes more than gross negligence to show willfulness or wantonness. Hull v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 76 S. C. 278, 57 SE 28, 10 LRANS 1213.(2) The trial court is not bound to grant an instruction which assumes that there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the conductor of a street car toward a passenger attempting 91 or the case they fail to state the law correctly," [ 1476] (3) Invading Province of Jury. Issues of fact must be submitted to the jury by instruc to alight therefrom, and that the negligence, if any, was wholly that of the motorman, where the whole case as to the alleged negligence of the company was properly submitted to the jury, leaving them to determine whether, under all the evidence, the injury was caused by the negligence of its employees or any of them. City, etc., R. Co. v. Svedborg, 194 U. S. 201, 24 SCt 656, 48 L. ed. 935 [aff 20 App. (D. C.) 543]. (3) Where the jury are instructed that for plaintiff to recover there must have been negligence on defendant's part, and ordinary care on plaintiff's part, there is no error in refusing further instructions as to comparative negligence. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Williams, 140 Ill. 275, 29 NE 672. 91. U. S.-Tacoma R., etc.. Co. v. Turner, 196 Fed. 484, 116 CCA 258. Ala. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Harden, 156 Ala. 244, 47 S 327; Montgomery St. R. Co. v. Lewis, 148 Ala. 134, 41 S 736; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 514, 9 S 722, 30 AmSR 65. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grider, 110 Ark. 437, 161 SW 1032; Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Hickey, 81 Ark. 579, 99 SW 839. Cal.-Wheaton V. North Beach, etc., R. Co., 36 Cal. 590. Colo. Colorado Midland R. Co. v. McGarry, 41 Colo. 398, 92 P 915. Co. V. Ill-South Chicago City R. Co. v. Dufresne, 200 III. 456, 65 NE 1075 [aff 102 II. A. 493]; Jurkiewicz v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 145 Ill. A. 44. Md.-Baltimore, etc., R. Rudy, 118 Md. 42, 84 A 241. Mass.-Ahern v. Boston El. R. Co.. 310 Mass. 506, 97 NE 72; Payne v. Springfield St. R. Co., 203 Mass. 425, 89 NE 536; Minihan v. Boston El. R. Co., 197 Mass. 367, 83 NE 871; Beverley v. Boston El. R. Co., 194 Mass. 450, 80 NE 507; Tozier v. Haverhill, etc., R. Co., 187 Mass. 179, 72 NE 953; Barry v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 172 Mass. 109, 51 NE 518. Minn.-Doran v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 128 Minn. 193, 150 NW 800. Mo.-Stauffer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 243 Mo. 305, 147 SW 1032; Roscoe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 202 Mo. 576, 101 SW 32; Hennessy V. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co., 173 Mo. 86, 73 SW 162; Jackson v. Grand Ave. R. Co.. 118 Mo. 199, 24 SW 192; Lindsay v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (A.) 178 SW 276; Bledsoe v. West. 186 Mo. A. 460, 171 SW 622; Kirby v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 146 Mo. A. 304, 130 SW 69; Skiles v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 130 Mo. A. 162, 108 SW 1082; Haas v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 128 Mo. A. 79, 106 SW 599; Jorden v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 122 Mo. A. 330, 99 SW 492. N. Y.-Buck v. Manhattan R. Co., 15 Daly 550, 10 NYS 107 [aff 134 N. Y. 589 mem, 31 NE 628 mem]. R. I. -Brierly v. Union R. Co., 26 R. I. 119, 58 A 451. Tex.-Bryant V. Northern Texas Tract. Co., 52 Tex. Civ. A. 600. 115 SW 880; San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Davis, (Civ. A.) 101 SW 554; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Bean, 45 Tex. Civ. A. 52 99 SW 721; San Antonio Tract. Co. V. Lambkin, (Civ. A.) 99 SW 574; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Easton, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 95, 97 SW 833; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Kingston, 30 Tex. Civ. A. 24, 68 SW 518; International, etc., R. Co. v. Downing, 16 Tex. Civ. A. 643, 41 SW 190. Vt.-Parker v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 84 Vt. 329, 79 A 865. Va.-Washington, etc., R. Co. V. Trimyer, 110 Va. 856, 67 SE 531. W. Va.-Teel v. Coal. etc., R. Co., 66 W. Va. 315, 66 SE 470. tions which clearly and fully state and define them;95 and an instruction is erroneous which invades the province of the jury,96 as where it withdraws or excludes a material issue of fact from the jury, as by assuming, as a matter of law, the ex 92. See cases supra note 72 [b]. 93. U. S.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reeder, 76 Fed. 550, 22 CCA 314 [aff 170 U. S. 530, 18 SCt 705, 42 L. ed. 1134]. Ark.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Jackson, 93 Ark. 119, 124 SW 241. Cal. Cody v. Market St. R. Co., Ill. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Iowa. Cubbage V. Youngerman, Mass.-Krock v. Boston El. R. Co., Mo.-Lindsay v. St. Louis, etc., R. Tenn.-Nashville R. Co. v. Howard, Tex.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. 94. See supra §§ 1453, 1454. Ark. Arkansas Cent. R. Co. V. Ind.-Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Ky.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. V. N. Y.-Simonin v. New York, etc., See also supra § 1474. [a] An instruction which submits the question of law, whether defendant was liable, instead of submitting the question of fact, whether defendant was negligent, is objectionable. Stanton v. Chicago City R. Co., 188 Ill. A. 502. [b] Indefinite statement of issue. -Where a declaration against a street railroad company for injuries to a passenger alleges that, while plaintiff was in the act of alighting from the car, defendant started the same before plaintiff had an opportunity to alight therefrom, a charge to find for defendant, if the preponderance of the evidence fails to show that plaintiff fell by reason of the car being started before she had an opportunity to alight therefrom, is properly refused, in that it fails definitely to state the issue presented by the pleadings. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. McCafferty, 220 111. 476, 77 NE 153. 96. Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. SW 1084; Hunter V. Cooperstown, 97. U. S.-Doyle v. Boston, etc., Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Ark.-Choctaw, etc., R. Co. V. Ark. 255, 45 SW 550. Colo.-Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cowan, 51 Colo. 64, 116 P 136. D. C.-Hart v. Capital Tract. Co., 35 App. 502. V. Ga. Savannah Electric Co. Pritchard, 133 Ga. 747, 66 SE 952. III.-Chicago Cons. Tract. Co. v. Schritter, 222 Ill. 364, 78 NE 820 [aff 124 Ill. A. 578]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lewis, 145 Ill. 67, 33 NE 960; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mehlsack, 131 III. 61, 22 NE 812, 19 AmSR 17; Buescher v. Illinois Valley R. Co., 182 111. A. 568; Forsyth v. Chicago Union Tract. Co., 134 Ill. A. 123; Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Craig, 126 I11. A. 361. Ind.-Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. V. Cooper, 120 Ind. 469, 22 NE 340, 16 AmSR 334, 6 LRA 241. Mass.-Cassady v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 184 Mass. 156, 68 NE 10, 63 LRA 285. Mo.-Cooper v. Century Realty Co., 224 Mo. 709, 123 SW 848; O'Brien v. St. Louis Transit Co., 185 Mo. 263, 84 SW 939, 105 AmSR 592; Goldsmith v. Holland Bldg. Co., 182 Mo. 597, 81 SW 1112; Schwanenfeldt v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 176 SW 1098; Stoltze v. United R. Co., 183 Mo. A. 304, 166 SW 1102. Mont.-Taillon v. Mears, 29 Mont. 161, 74 P 421, 1 AnnCas 613. Nebr.-Lincoln Tract. Co. v. Brookover, 77 Nebr. 221, 111 NW 357, 77 Nebr. 217, 109 NW 168. N. J.-Mason v. Erie R. Co., 75 N. J. L. 521, 68 A 105. N. Y.-Loudoun v. Eighth Ave. R. Co., 162 N. Y. 380, 56 NE 988 [rev 16 App. Div. 152, 44 NYS 742]; Loewe v. New York City R. Co.. 121 App. Div. 729, 106 NYS 488; Weeks v. Auburn, etc.. Electric R. Co., 60 Misc. 400, 113 NYS 636; Victorson v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 137 NYS 860; Alexander V. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 12 NYS 685 [rev on other grounds 128 N. Y. 13, 27 NE 950]. N. C.-Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 147 N. C. 315, 61 SE 171, 19 LRANS 1028; Miller v. Atlanta, etc., Air-Line R. Co., 143 N. C. 115, 55 SE 439. Or.-Finseth v. Suburban R. Co., 32 Or. 1, 51 P 84, 39 LRA 517. Pa.-Lombard, etc., R. Co. v. Christian, 124 Pa. 114, 16 A 628. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Huff, 98 Tex. 110, 81 SW 525 [rev (Civ. A.) 78 SW 249]; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Hays, (Čiv. A.) 131 SW 416; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Civ. A.) 115 SW 640; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Summers, (Čiv. A.) 49 SW 1106 [aff 92 Tex. 621, 51 SW 321]; Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Strong, (Cr.) 108 SW 394. Wash.-Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 P 995. W. Va.-Carrico v. West Virginia Cent., etc., R. Co., 35 W. Va. 389, 14 SE 12. Wis.-Ferguson v. Truax, 132 Wis. 478, 110 NW 395, 111 NW 657, 112 NW 513, 14 LRANS 350, 13 AnnCas 1092. [a] Thus, (1) where plaintiff's injury in an elevator was caused by a combination of a metal projection and the open side of the elevator cage, it is proper to refuse an instruction that the jury shall not consider the fact that the elevator cage had no doors. Goldsmith v. Holland Bldg. Co., 182 Mo. 597, 81 SW 1112. (2) Where it is not certain that some of the passengers on the train did not occupy more seats than they were entitled to, and that defendant could not furnish a seat to plaintiff's wife, an instruction that defendant is not liable if it provided its trains with sufficient equipment 99 98 istence or nonexistence of material facts in issue," or by assuming or charging that certain facts do or do not constitute negligence." An instruction is also erroneous where it unduly emphasizes a particular fact in issue.1 However, an instruction which defines the duty or degree of care required of the carrier and leaves the facts of the case to be found by the jury, and also leaves them to say whether the facts found constitute negligence as defined, is not objectionable as withdrawing that issue from the jury. So an instruction which assumes or charges that certain acts, made negligence to accommodate the number of passengers which it reasonably might expect is properly refused. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Tittle, (Tex. Civ. A.) 115 SW 640. (3) Where, in an action for injuries to a passenger on a street car, caused by the burning out of a fuse, there is evidence which would warrant the conclusion that the duration and intensity of the flame produced by the explosion were greatly in excess of that which would have been the result if the fuse had been in proper condition, and that the improper condition of the fuse could have been discovered by the use of reasonable care, an instruction that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply is properly refused, since how far negligence could be inferred from the accident itself under such circumstances is a question for the jury: Cassady v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 184 Mass. 156, 68 NE 10, 63 LRA 285. [b] Instructions held not objectionable as withdrawing issues of fact from the jury. (1) Mobile Light, etc., Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 295, 40 S 560; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 SW 661, 91 AmSR 74; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cowan, 51 Colo. 64, 116 P 136; Macon Cons. St. R. Co. v. Barnes, 113 Ga. 212, 38 SE 756; Ferrier v. Chicago R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 326; Miller v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 414, 102 SW 592; Doering v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 42 Misc. 192, 85 NYS 400; Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 P 995. (2) The question of negligence arising from defective platform and lights, having been submitted to the jury, was not withdrawn from their consideration by a charge that "this case must be treated precisely as though this suit had been brought directly against the conductor and engineer, if the accident happened through the fault of the 98. U. S.-Cohen v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 60 Fed. 698, 9 CCA 223. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Bostic, 121 Ark. 295, 180 SW 988, 181 SW 135. 3 by law, or on which the facts are unequivocal,* constitute negligence, or which assumes as a matter of law a fact which is of common knowledge or which is declared by a provision of a statute or constitution, is not erroneous. [ 1477] (4) Conformity to Pleadings and Evidence. The instructions must conform and be confined to the issues made by the pleadings and evidence, and on which the case has been tried. An instruction is erroneous or properly refused which is not confined to and in conformity with issues Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fisher, 141 Ill. 614, 31 NE 406 [aff 38 Ill. A. 33]; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mason, 132 Ill. A. 403. Ind.-Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Richey, (A.) 80 NE 170. Mass.-Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849. Miss.-Mississippi, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 66 Miss. 419, 6 S 319, 14 AmSR 573. Mo.-Newcomb v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 182 Mo. 687, 81 SW 1069; Flucks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (A.) 122 SW 348; Wilburn v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. A. 203. N. Y.-Goodkind V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 93 App. Div. 153, 87 NYS 523. Oh.-Holmes v. Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co., 10 Oh. Cir. Dec. 638. as Tex.-San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 73 Tex. 277, 11 SW 327; International, etc., R. Co. v. Eckford, 71 Tex. 274, 8 SW 679; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Fales, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 457, 77 SW 234; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Born, 20 Tex. Civ. A. 351, 50 SW 613. [a] Пlustrations.(1) An instruction, assuming that the operation of a train around a curve "at an unusually high rate of speed" was negligent, is erroneous, a speed may safe, although unusual. Flucks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Mo. A.) 122 SW 348. (2) An instruction that, if the train was wrecked, and this was the proximate cause of the injuries, plaintiff was entitled to recover, is erroneous because giving conclusive effect to the mere fact that the train Galwas wrecked. veston, etc., R. Co. v. Fales, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 457, 88 SW 234. 1. be Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dunbar, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 12, 108 SW 500; Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Strong, (Tex. Civ. A.) 108 SW 394. [a] Instructions held not erroconductor and engineer."neous, as giving undue prominence to Doyle v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 82 Fed. particular facts. Harvey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 221 III. 242, 77 NE 569 869, 27 CCA 264. [aff 116 III. A. 507, 123 Ill. A. 442]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Otto, 52 III. 416; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 147 Ky. 694, 145 SW 370, AnnCas 1913D 208; Peck v. St. Louis Transit Co., 178 Mo. 617, 77 SW 736; Fleming v. Kansas City Suburban Belt R. Co., 89 Mo. A. 129; Texas Pac. R. Co. v. Davidson, 68 Tex. 370, 4 SW 636; El Paso Electric R. Co. v. Ruckman, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 25, 107 SW 1158; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Copley, 38 Tex. Civ. A. 568, 87 SW 219 (as to duty required of conductor). D. C.-Harmon v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 17 D. C. 57. Mich.-Smith v. Detroit United R. Co., 145 Mich. 629, 108 NW 1024. N. Y.-Suse v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 80 App. Div. 24, 80 NYS 513. Pa.-Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Alvord, 128 Pa. 42. 18 A 391. Tex.-Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, (Civ. A.) 166 SW 453 (not erroneous). See also Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Adams, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 112, 72 SW 81. Wis.-Imhoff v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 20 Wis. 344. See also cases supra note 97; and generally Trial [38 Cyc 1657]. Compare Burbridge v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 36 Mo. A. 669 (uncontradicted evidence). 99. Ala.-Sweet V. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 145 Ala. 667, 39 S 767. Ark.-St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. V. Rush, 86 Ark. 325, 111 SW 263. Ga.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Brown, 138 Ga. 107, 74 SE 839; West End, etc., St. R. Co. v. Mozely, 79 Ga. 463. 4 SE 324 (starting car while passenger was alighting). [10 C.J.-69] Undue prominence to particular facts generally see Trial [38 Cyc 1690]. 2. Macon R., etc., Co. v. Vining, 123 Ga. 770, 51 SE 719; Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Miller, 43 Ind. A. 717, 88 NE 526; McGovern v. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Killebrew, (Tex.) 20 SW 182; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Morrison, 46 Tex. Civ. A. 186. 102 SW 143: St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Harrison, 32 Tex. Civ. A. 368, 73 SW 38: Galveston, etc.. R. Co. v. Cooper, 2 Tex. Civ. A. 42. 20 SW 990. To same effect South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Markel, 168 Ky. 625, 182 SW 850. [a] Assistance to passenger.-The action of the court in calling the attention of the jury to facts shown in evidence in determining whether the employees of the carrier should have assisted the passenger to alight, and leaving it for the jury to say whether there was negligence in not giving the passenger assistance was proper, as the duty to assist passengers to alight might arise under special circumstances. McGovern v. Interurban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476. [b] Selecting safe place for passenger to alight.-A charge that a carrier must select a reasonably safe place for a passenger to alight, where it stops a car for that purpose, is not open to objection that it instructs the jury that a failure so to do would be negligence per se. Macon R., etc., Co. v. Vining, 123 Ga. 770, 51 SE 719. 3. Fields v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 624, 155 SW 845; Bond v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 122 Mo. A. 207, 99 SW 30; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Murphy, 46 Tex. 356, 26 AmR 272. 4. Chicago City R. Co. v. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, 68 NE 1087 [aff 102 Ill. A. 202]; South Side Pass. R. Co. v. Trich, 117 Pa. 390, 11 A 627, 2 Am SR 672. See also Johnson v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., 27 Tex. Civ. A. 616, 66 SW 906. 5. Lindenbaum v. New York, etc., R. Co., 197 Mass. 314, 84 NE 129. 6. Duck v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 63 SW 891. [a] Railroad company as common carrier. In an action against a railroad company for compelling plaintiff's wife and child to ride in a cold, filthy car, the court in the absence of an admission that defendant was a common carrier should have given a charge to that effect, without submitting the question, Const. art 10 § 2, declaring that railroad companies common carriers. Duck v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 63 SW 891. 7. are 8. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1612].. U. S.-St. Louis Transit Co. v. Thompson, 137 Fed. 713, 70 CCA 405. Ala.-Mobile Light, etc.. Co. V. Hughes, 190 Ala. 216, 67 S 278. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Briggs, 87 Ark. 581, 113 SW 644. Conn.-Anthony v. Connecticut Co., 88 Conn. 700, 92 A 672. Ga. Turner v. City Electric R. Co., 134 Ga. 869, 68 SE 735. Ill. Sandy v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 235 Ill. 194. 85 NE 300 [aff 137 Ill. A. 244]; Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Lowenrosen, 222 Ill. 506, 78 NE 813 [aff 125 Ill. A. 194]. Iowa.-Ray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 Iowa 430, 144 NW 1018; Mitchell v. Des Moines City R. Co., 161 Iowa 100. 141 NW 43; Hoffman v. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. Co., 157 Iowa 655, 139 NW 165, AnnCas1915C 905; Marcus v. Omaha, etc., R., etc., Co., 142 Iowa 84, 120 NW 469; Hiatt v. Des Moines, etc., R. Co., 96 Iowa 169, 64 NW 766. Ky.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Gunterman, 135 Ky. 438, 122 SW 514; Louisville R. Co. v. Meglemery, 79 SW 287, 25 KyL 2062 [den reh 78 SW 217, 25 KyL 1587]. |