and sufficiency of the evidence on the question of an injured passenger's contributory negligence,57 and as to whether it was the proximate cause of the injury.58 Thus a preponderance of the evidence is necessary to prove or disprove contributory negligence in entering or boarding a car or conveyance, 57. See cases infra this section. [a] Evidence held sufficient to show contributory negligence. (1) Boden v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 504, 91 NE 879; Reimer v. New York, etc., R. Co., 178 Mass. 54, 59 NE 671; Sattler v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 71 Nebr. 213, 98 NW 663; Relyea v. Central New England R. Co., 137 App. Div. 12, 121 NYS 711; Grabler v. New York, etc., R. Ferry Co., 64 Misc. 58, 117 NYS 1018. (2) In standing in a space between the rails of the double tracks, at the usual stopping place. Chunn v. Washington City, etc., R. Co., 23 App. (D. C.) 551 [rev on other grounds 207 U. S. 127, 28 SCt 63, 52 L. ed. 219]. (3) In passing around the rear of a car from which he alighted and attempting to cross the street in front of a car coming in the opposite direction. Cohen Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 66, 88 NE 453. (4) In slipping on an icy station platform while attempting to catch a moving train. Kemp v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 135 App. Div. 773, 119 NYS 845. V. or [b] Evidence held insufficient to show contributory negligence, sufficient to show freedom from such negligence. McShane v. Chicago City R. Co., 170 Ill. A. 257; Kentucky, etc., Bridge, etc., Co. v. Buckler, 100 SW 328, 30 KyL 1086, 8 LRANS 555; Shannon v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 4 La. A. (Orleans) 302; Hutchins v. Penobscot Bay, etc., Steamboat Co., 110 Me. 369, 86 A 250, AnnCas1914 D 132; Fortune v. Southern R. Co., 150 N. C. 695, 64 SE 759; Texas Tract. Co. v. Sherron, (Tex. Civ. A.) 166 SW 897; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Cook, (Tex. Civ. A.) 166 SW 453; Texas Midland R. Co. v. Monroe, (Tex. Civ. A.) 155 SW 973; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dickson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 153 SW 933. [c] Willful injury.-(1) Actual knowledge by a carrier's employees of the peril of a passenger, sufficient to render the carrier guilty of wanton negligence, so as to excuse contributory negligence, may be proved by circumstances from which such knowledge is a legitimate inference. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Jung, 161 Ala. 461, 49 S 434, 18 AnnCas 557. (2) Evidence held sufficient to justify a finding that defendant's employees operated the car in a reckless, willful, or wanton disregard of existing conditions, within a statute authorizing a recovery for the death of a passenger caused by gross negligence of the carrier's employees. Spooner v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 190 Mass. 132, 76 NE 660. (3) Evidence held insufficient to show negligence of the motorman, after he knew, or ought, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have known, of the passenger's danger. Kruck v. Connecticut Co., 84 Conn. 401, 80 A 162. [d] A carrier's burden to establish contributory negligence is satisfied, if it appears from all the evidence produced by either party. Public Utilities Co. v. Cosby, 60 Ind. A. 252, 110 NE 576; Terre Haute, etc., Tract. Co. v. Frischman, 57 Ind. A. 452. 107 NE 296. 58. Shamblin New V. Orleans, etc., R. Co.. 114 La. 467, 38 S 421; Ebling v. Second Ave. R. Co., 60 App. Div. 616 mem,. 69 NYS 1102; Codington V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 152 NYS 989: Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 51 Tex. Civ. A. 126, 111 SW 1098. See, also supra § 1451. 59. New v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 114 Mo. A. 379, 89 SW 1043: Wallace v. Third Ave. R. Co., 36 App. Div. 57, 55 NYS 132. 59 ing or boarding a car or other conveyance, or insufficient to show freedom from such negligence. Bentson v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 377, 88 NE 437. (2) In boarding a moving train or car. Greco v. Long Island R. Co., 159 App. Div. 298, 144 NYS 240; Howard v. Forty-Second St., etc., R. Co., 125 App. Div. 776, 110 NYS 125; Ebling v. Second Ave. R. Co., 60 App. Div. 616 mem, 69 NYS 1102. [b] Contributory negligence not shown.-Evidence held insufficient to show contributory negligence: (1) In entering or boarding a car or other conveyance, or sufficient to show freedom from such negligence. Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Robinson, 96 Ark. 32, 130 SW 536; Reynolds v. Alton, etc., Tract. Co., 194 Ill. A. 87; McCarthy v. Boston El. R. Co., 208 Mass. 512, 94 NE 749; Hamilton v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 324, 79 NE 734. (2) In boarding a moving train or car. Gannon v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 141 Iowa 37, 117 NW 966, 23 LRANS 1061; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 51 Tex. Civ. A. 126, 111 SW 1098; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Trigo, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 523, 108 SW 1193. [c] Prima facie evidence.-The act of a passenger in boarding a moving train is at least prima facie evidence of negligence. Murphy v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 183 Mich. 435, 150 See NW 122, LRA1915C 536. generally supra § 1495. 60. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Rush, (Ark.) 123 SW 804; Girardo v. Wilmington, etc., Tract. Co., (Del.) 90 A 476; Adams v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 99 App. Div. 621 mem, 90 NYS 937; Lehner v. Pittsburg R. Co., 223 Pa. 208, 72 A 525, 132 AmSR 729, 16 AnnCas 83. [a] Contributory negligence shown. -Evidence held sufficient to show contributory negligence: (1) In alighting, or insufficient to show freedom from Barsuch negligence. ringer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 73 Ark. 518, 85 SW 94, 87 SW 814; Drane v. Sterling, etc., Electric R. Co., 154 Ill. A. 70 (as matter of law); Hannestad v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Iowa) 118 NW 38; Leary v. Fitchburg R. Co., 173 Mass. 373, 53 NE 817; Truesdell v. Erie R. Co., 114 App. Div. 34, 99 NYS 694; Pearl v. Interurban St. R. Co., 88 NYS 915; Grabenstein v. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 86 NYS 727; Hertzberg v. San Antonio Tract. Co., 56 Tex. Civ. A. 437, 120 SW 572. (2) In alighting from a moving train or car. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 59 Ind. A. 572, 108 NE 377, 1135; Newlin v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 127 Iowa 654, 103 NW 999; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 168 Ky. 351, 182 SW 214, LRA1916D 514; Glascock V. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 140 Ky. 720, 131 SW 779; Scroggins v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 138 Mo. A. 215, 120 SW 731; Lee v. Elizabeth, etc., R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 607, 55 A 106. (3) In alighting at an improper place. Farrell v. Great Northern R. Co., 100 Minn. 361, 111 NW 388, 9 LRANS 1113. (4) In jumping from a car on to a parallel track in front of an approaching car, to avoid danger of a collision by a car running into the car on which he was riding. Adamson v. Norfolk, etc., Tract. Co., 111 Va. 556, 69 SE 1055. [b] Contributory negligence not shown.-Evidence held insufficient to show contributory negligence: (1) In alighting, or sufficient to show freedom from such negligence. Jurkiewicz v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 145 [a] Contributory negligence shown. Ill. A. 44; Henry v. Swailes, 57 Ind. -Evidence held sufficient to show A. 218, 105 NE 162; Cincinnati, etc., contributory negligence: (1) In enter- R. Co. v. Worthington, 30 Ind. A. 663, V. 65 NE 557, 66 NE 478, 96 AmSR 355; Pomroy v. Bangor, etc., R. Co., 102 Me. 497, 67 A 561; Topp v. United R., etc., Co., 99 Md. 630, 59 A 52, 1 Ann Cas 912; McDermott v. Boston El. R. Co., 208 Mass. 104, 94 NE 309; Foster v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 182 Mass. 378, 65 NE 795; Oddy v. West End St. R. Co., 178 Mass. 341, 59 NE 1026, 86 AmSR 482; Hutton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 166 Mo. A. 645, 150 SW 722; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Churchill, (Tex. Civ. A.) 171 SW 517; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Abbott, (Tex. Civ. A.) 170 SW 117; Northern Texas Tract. Co. v. Danforth, 53 Tex. Civ. A. 419, 116 SW 147; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cleaver, 48 Tex. Civ. A. 294, 106 SW 721. (2) In alighting from a moving train or car. Johnson Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 130 N. C. 488, 41 SE 794; Murray v. Rhode Island Co., (R. I.) 82 A 1; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Keith, (Tex. Civ. A.) 163 SW 142; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Crockett, 27 Tex. Civ. A. 463, 66 SW 114; Gaines v. Ogden Rapid Transit Co., 44 Utah 512, 141 P 110. (3) In alighting from a train or car which suddenly starts or jerks. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Taylor, 70 SW 825, 24 KyL 1169; Buccola v. Shreveport Tract. Co., 132 La. 106, 61 S 130; Wegeschiede v. St. Louis Transit Co., 118 Mo. A. 295, 94 SW 774; Scamell v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 198, 76 SW 660; Williams v. Camden, etc., R. Co., (N. J. Sup.) 37 A 1107; McNeece v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 123 App. Div. 830, 108 NYS 317. (4) In jumping from a car which had broken loose from the train. Prescott, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 91 Ark. 365, 123 SW 392. (5) In stepping from a caboose in the dark. Miller v. Southern Pac. Co., 26 Mo. 19, 178 SW 885. (6) In leaving an elevator. Bullock v. Butler Exch. Co., 24 R. I. 50, 52 A 122. (7) Where, in an action for injuries to a passenger while alighting from a train, there was evidence that she hurried out as soon as the train had stopped, her statement that the train was still as long as three minutes before she got out of her seat, with a declaration that she "could not tell how long it had been still," was insufficient to charge her with contributory negligence, St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. V. Byrne, 73 Ark. 377, 84 SW 469. [c] That a passenger cannot describe her action in leaving the car on which she was injured does not show that she did not exercise due care in so doing. Beattie v. Boston El. R. Co.. 201 Mass. 3, 86 NE 920. 61. Quisenberry v. Metropolitan v. Lohe, 27 Oh. Cir. Ct. 138. [a] Contributory negligence shown. -Evidence held sufficient to show contributory negligence: (1) While in transit, or insufficient to show freedom from such negligence. Quinn v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 218 Mo. 545, 118 SW 46; Lange v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 151 Mo. A. 500, 132 SW 31; Budner v. New Jersey Public Service Corp., 74 N. J. L. 298, 65 A 893; McLean v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S. C. 100, 61 SE 900, 1071, 128 AmSR 892, 18 LRANS 763. (2) In riding on platform, steps, or running board. Fraser v. California St. Cable R. Co., 146 Cal. 714, 81 P 29: Southern R. Co. v. Strickland, 130 Ga. 779, 61 SE 826: Sterling, etc., R. Co. v. Wise, 128 Ill. A. 632; Rolette v. Great Northern R. Co., 91 Minn. 16, 97 NW 431, 1 AnnCas 313. (3) In coming in contact with obstacles near the track. Wichita R., etc.. Co. v. Cummings, 72 Kan. 694, 84 P 121; Bridges v. Jackson Electric R., etc., Co., 86 Miss. 584, 38 S 788, 4 AnnCas 662; Cusick v. Interurban St. R. Co., 86 NYS 758. [b] Contributory negligence not erally. Thus contributory negligence is a question (2) shown.-Evidence held insufficient to show contributory negligence: (1) While in transit, or sufficient to show freedom from such negligence. Dewey v. Boston El. R. Co., 217 Mass. 599, 105 NE 366; Martin v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 211 Mass. 535, 98 NE 579; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Troyer, 70 Nebr. 293, 103 NW 680, 70 Nebr. 287, 97 NW 308; Lord v. Manchester St. R. Co., 74 N. H. 295, 67 A 639; Graham v. New York City R. Co., 54 Misc. 566, 104 NYS 869; Herring v. Galveston, etc., R. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 108 SW 977 [writ of error dism 113 SW 5211; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Walker, 48 Tex. Civ. A. 86, 106 SW 400; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Gammage, (Tex. Civ. A.) 96 SW 645; Zimmer v. Fox River Valley Electric R. Co., 118 Wis. 614, 95 NW 957. In riding on the platform, steps, or running board. Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 104 Tex. 482, 140 SW 434 [rev (Civ. A.) 127 SW 294]; Engen v. Chippewa Valley R., etc., Co., 162 Wis. 515, 156 NW 460; Tolleman v. Sheboygan Light, etc., R. Co. 148 Wis. 197, 134 NW 406. (3) Where, in an action for the death of a street car passenger caused by being thrown from the front platform of the car by a sudden jolt thereof, there was no evidence describing the manner in which the deceased was standing with reference to bracing himself, or as to whether he had hold of any part of the car just prior to the accident, nor were there any facts from which the jury could have inferred that the deceased was taking any precaution whatever to guard against losing his balance, plaintiff failed to establish that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence. Depew V. New York City R. Co., 112 App. Div. 260, 98 NYS 276. 62. See generally Trial [38 Cyc 1511]; Negligence [29 Cyc 627 et seq]. 63. Cal.-Nagle V. California South R. Co., 88 Cal. 86, 25 P 1106. Colo.-Jackson v. Crilly, 16 Colo. 103, 26 P 331. Ga.-Meeks v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 122 Ga. 266, 50 SE 99. Ill-Devine v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Ill. A. 360. Ind. T.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Hoover, 3 Ind. T. 693, 64 SW 579. Iowa.-Raben v. Central Iowa R. Co., 74 Iowa 732, 34 NW 621. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Derrickson, 170 Ky. 334, 185 SW 1114; Hayden v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 160 Ky. 836, 170 SW 200, LRA1915C 181 and note; South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Hossfeld, 145 Ky. 22, 139 SW 1095. Md. Baltimore, etc., Turnp. Road Co. v. Leonhardt, 66 Md. 70, 5 A 346. Mass.-Mayo v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 104 Mass. 137. Mo.-Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.. 105 Mo. A. 512, 80 SW 33. N. Y.-Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 302; Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 47, 10 AmR 327; Ebling v. Second Ave. R. Co., 60 App. Div. 616 mem, 69 NYS 1102 mem. Oh.-Cincinnati, etc.. Electric R. Co. v. Lohe, 27 Oh. Cir. Ct. 138. Tex.-Texas Mexican R. Co. V. Wilson, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 565. [a] If there is no evidence of contributory negligence, the court cannot submit the question to the jury. Stoddard v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. A. 512, 80 SW 33. where the facts are undisputed, if the evidence is of such a character that different conclusions can be reasonably drawn therefrom.64 Whether the carrier's employees were guilty of such willful and wanton conduct as to excuse contributory negligence on the part of the passenger is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury,65 as is also the question whether the passenger was justified in believing that a particular rule or regulation of the carrier had been permitted to fall into disuse.66 [b] Conclusive evidence.-Where | 420, 100 NE 604; McDonough v. Bosthe evidence of the passenger shows ton El. R. Co., 191 Mass. 509, 78 NE conclusively contributory negligence, 141; Townsend v. Boston, 187 Mass. the court may direct a nonsuit. Mc- 286. 72 NE 991. Quilken v. Central Pac. R. Co., 50 Cal. 7. 64. U. S.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Bigger, 239 U. S. 330, 36 SCt 127, 60 L. ed. 310 [aff 218 Fed. 990. 133 CCA 673]; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 13 SCt 557, 37 L. ed. 284; Evans v. Southern Pac. Co., 202 Fed. 160, 120 CCA 448; Norfolk, etc., Co. v. Rotolo, 191 Fed. 4, 112 CCA 583; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Griffin, 80. Fed. 278, 25 CCA 413; Hastings v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Fed. 224. Dilburn. 178 Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Ala. 600, 59 S 438: Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Seale, 172 Ala. 480, 55 S 237; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Lide, 171 Ala. 400, 58 S 990; Central R., etc., Co. v. Miles, 88 Ala. 256, 6 S 696. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Bright, 109 Ark. 4, 159 SW 33; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Holmes, 96 Ark. 339, 131 SW 692. Cal-Miller v. Pacific Electric R. Co., 169 Cal. 107, 145 P 1023; McQuilken v. Central Pac. R. Co., 64 Cal. 463, 2 P 46; Braly v. Fresno City R. Co., 9 Cal. A. 417, 99 P 400. Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, 61 P 606, 51 LRA 121. Ga.-Bailey v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 144 Ga. 139, 86 SE 326; Columbus R. Co. v. Asbell, 133 Ga. 573, 66 SE 902. Hawaii. Bright v. Quinn, 20 Hawaii, 504. Ill.-East St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Zink, 229 Ill. 180, 82 NE 283; Gorman v. South Side El. R. Co., 191 Ill. A. 471; Coburn v. Moline, etc., R. Co., 149 Ill. A. 132 [aff 243 Ill. 448, 90 NE 741, 134 AmSR 377]; Jurkiewicz v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 145 Ill. A. 44; Peterson v. Elgin, etc., Tract. Co., 142 Ill. A. 34 [aff 238 Ill. 403, 87 NE 345]. Ind.-Hall v. Terre Haute Electric Co., 38 Ind. A. 43, 76 NE 334. Iowa.-Cubbage V. Youngerman, 155 Iowa 39, 134 NW 1074; Dorn v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 154 Iowa 140, 134 NW 855; Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343; Garvik V. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 131 Iowa 415, 108 NW 327, 117 AmSR 432; Matthieson v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 125 Iowa 90, 100 NW 51. Ky.- Kentucky Tract., etc.. Co. v. 356; Waits, 167 Ky. 236, 180 SW Beiser v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 152 Ky. 522, 153 SW 742, 43 LRANS 1050 (falling over valise in aisle of poorly lighted car); Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 150 Ky. 692, 150 SW 849; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Grimes, 150 Ky. 219, 150 SW 346; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. La. Kird v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co.. 105 La. 226, 29 S 729. Me. Shannon V. Boston, etc., R. Co.. 78 Me. 52, 2 A 678. Md.-Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Trader, 106 Md. 635, 68 A 12; Strauss V. United R., etc., Co., 101 Md. 497, 61 A 137. Mass.-Vahey v. Boston El. R. Co., 222 Mass. 374, 111 NE 40; Wheeler v. Boston El. R. Co., 220 Mass. 298, 107 NE 938; Clish v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 219 Mass. 341, 106 NE 854; Hamilton v. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. Minn.-Doran v. Chicago, etc.. R. Co.. 128 Minn. 193. 150 NW 800: Hoblit v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 111 Minn. 77, 126 NW 407. Miss.-Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Aden, 77 Miss. 382, 27 S 385. Mo.- Kelly v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 70 Mo. 604; Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 189 Mo. A. 555, 176 SW 1120. Mont.-Kunckey v. Butte Electric R. Co., 45 Mont. 106, 122 P 280. Nebr.- Kadner v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 97 Nebr. 678, 151 NW 169; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Winfrey, 67 Nebr. 13, 93 NW 526. N. J.-Kulman v. Erie R. Co., 65 N. J. L. 241, 47 A 497. N. Y.-Kleffmann v. Dry Dock, etc., R. Co., 104 App. Div. 416, 93 NYS 741, 16 NYAnnCas 334; Wimpleberg v. Yonkers R. Co., 83 App. Div. 19. 81 NYS 963; Berry v. Utica Belt Line St. R. Co., 76 App. Div. 490, 78 NYS 542 [aff 87 App. Div. 620 mem, 83 NYS 1102 mem]; Wallace v.Third Ave. R. Co., 36 App. Div. 57, 55 NYS 132; Armstrong v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 66 Barb. 437 [aff 64 N. Y. 635 mem]; Brettner v. Westchester Electric R. Co., 49 Misc. 508, 98 NYS 857; Jones v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 3 NYS 253 [aff 121 N. Y. 683 mem, 24 NE 1098 mem]. N. C.-Leggett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 168 N. C. 366, 84 SE 357; Stanley v. Southern R. Co., 160 N. C. 323, 76 SE 221; 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, 144 N. C. 545, 57 SE 345; Graves v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 136 N. C. 3, 48 SE 502. N. D. McGregor v. Great Northern R. Co., 31 N. D. 471, 154 NW 261. Pa. Warren v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co., 243 Pa. 15, 89 A 828; Enches v. New York, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. 194, 19 A 939. S. C.-Cunningham V. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 96 S. C. 456, 81 SE 150. Tex.-Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Wilson, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 565; Feagin v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 45 Tex. Civ. A. 251, 100 SW 346. Utah.-Fitzgerald v. Southern Pac. Co., 31 Utah 510, 88 P 669; Mathis V. Southern Pac. Co., 31 Utah 507, 88 P 668. V. Wash.-Bemiss Puget Sound Tract., etc., Co., 89 Wash. 239, 154 P 171; Hendrickson v. Grays Harbor R., etc., Co., 88 Wash. 145, 152 P 992; Atwood v. Washington Water Power Co., 71 Wash. 518, 128 P 1065; Bugge v. Seattle Electric Co., 54 Wash. 483, 103 P 824; Vasele v. Grant St. Electric R. Co., 16 Wash. 602, 48 P 249. Wis.-Hewitt v. Southern Wisconsin R. Co., 159 Wis. 309, 150 NW 502; Nelson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 130 Wis. 214, 109 NW 933. See also supra §§ 1481-1514. 65. Birmingham R., etc.. Co. v. Jung, 161 Ala. 461, 49 S 434, 18 Ann Cas 557; Rodgers v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 76 Ark. 520, 89 SW 468, 113 Am SR 102, LRANS 1145; Roberts V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 155 N. C. 79, 70 SE 1080. 66. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. V. Lynch, (Tex. Civ. A.) 55 SW 517. Persons under disability. Whether a person under disability, such as a child, an enfeebled person, or an intoxicated person, was guilty of contributory negligence relative to his injuries is ordinarily a question for the jury under the evidence.67 [§ 1521] (2) Particular Applications of Rules(a) Questions of Law. Where the evidence is undisputed, or, if disputed, is of such a nature that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion therefrom, it is a question of law for the court as to whether a passenger was guilty of contributory negligence in boarding a train or cars while it was in motion, or in alighting from a train or car70 while it was in motion, or in alighting at an im 69 71 67. U. S.-Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Tharp, 223 Fed. 615, 139 CCA 161. Ark.-Price v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Ark. 479, 88 SW 575, 112 Am SR 79 (an intoxicated passenger going on the platform). Cal.-Seller v. Market-St. R. Co., 139 Cal. 268, 72 P 1006. Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. V. Derry, 47 Colo. 584, 108 P 172, 27 LRANS 761 (blind passenger). Ill. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. V. Scott, 111 Ill. A. 234; Schneider v. North Chicago St. R. Co., 80 Ill. A. 306 (child). Iowa.-Newman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 154 Iowa 72. 134 NW 585 (whether plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the accident). Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Deason, 96 SW 1115, 29 KyL 1259. Me.-Blair v. Lewiston, etc., R. Co., 110 Me. 235, 85 A 792. Mich.-Mercer v. Cincinnati Northern R. Co., 151 Mich. 566, 115 NW 733 (a physically disabled passenger attempting to alight unassisted); Fox v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 138 Mich. 433, 101 NW 624, 68 LRA 336, 5 AnnCas 68 and note. Miss. Fore v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 211, 39 S 493, 690 (a boy alighting from a moving freight car in obedience to the order of the conductor). Mo.-Moeller v. St. Louis United R. Co., 133 Mo. A. 68, 112 SW 714 (a boy of twelve alighting from a moving car). N. H.-Kambour v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A 624, 45 LRANS 1188 (a boy jumping from a moving train). N. J.-Kelly v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 62 N. J. L. 514, 41 A 686 (a' boy boarding a car). N. Y.-Paine V. Geneva, etc., Tract. Co., 115 App. Div. 729, 101 NYS 204; Schreiner v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 12 App. Div. 551, 42 NYS 163. Pa.-Moran V. Versailles Tract. Co., 188 Pa. 557, 41 A 652; Heim v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 20 Pa. Dist. 769. S. C.-Talbert v. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 72 S. C. 137, 51 SE 564 (man with only one arm). Tex.-Galveston, etc., R. Co. V. Fink, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 544, 99 SW 204; Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, (Civ. A.) 79 SW 320 [rev on other grounds 98 Tex. 196, 82 SW 782, 107 AmSR 626]. See also supra §§ 1482-1484. [a] Age of discretion.-Whether a child nine years old has sufficient discretion to alight from a car without special attention from the conductor is a question of fact. Ridenhour v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 102 Mo. 270, 13 SW 889, 14 SW 760. 68. Smith V. Birmingham Light. etc.. Co., 147 Ala. 702, 41 S 307. See also supra §§ 1493, 1494. R. 69. Meeks v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 122 Ga. 266, 50 SE 99; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gore, 96 Ill. A. 553. See also supra § 1495. 70. Baker V. Interurban St. R. Co., 86 NYS 9 (evidence too uncertain). See also supra §§ 1496-1499. 71. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Collins, 59 Ind. A. 572, 108 NE 377, 1135; Dockham v. North Jersey St. R. Co., (N. J. Sup.) 66 A 961 (direction of [§ 1522] (b) Questions of Fact. Where the evidence is disputed, or, if undisputed, is of such a nature that reasonable minds might come to different conclusions therefrom, it is a question of fact for the jury as to whether a passenger was guilty of contributory negligence while using the carrier's premises, platforms, and approaches, in waiting for, or going to, or leaving a train or car,75 such as in crossing tracks in going to or leaving a train or car;70 or whether he was guilty of contributory neg verdict for defendant); Jagger v. People's St. R. Co., 180 Pa. 436, 36 A 867, 38 LRA 786 and note (car moving at the rate of from four to five miles an hour). See also supra §§ 1501-1506. V. 72. Scanlon Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 208 Pa. 195, 57 A 521. See also supra § 1500. 73. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Lawler, 107 SW 702, 32 KyL 994 [reh den 109 SW 908, 33 KyL 308]; Ricciardell v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co.. 165 App. Div. 152, 150 NYS 593. See also supra § 1492. 74. Germantown Pass. R. Co. v. Walling, 97 Pa. 55, 39 AmR 796. See also supra §§ 1513, 1514. 75. U. S.-Harmon V. Flintham, 196 Fed. 635, 116 CCA 309; O'Field v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 189 Fed. 721, 111 CCA 259; Atlantic City R. Co. v. Clegg, 183 Fed. 216, 105 CCA 478 [certiorari den 220 U. S. 609, 31 SCt 714, 55 L. ed. 6081; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Wagley, 91 Fed. 860, 34 CCA 114. Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. Glascow, 179 Ala. 251, 60 S 103. V. Ark. Cook v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 120 Ark. 394, 179 SW 501; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 144 SW 922; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Caldwell, 93 Ark. 286, 124 SW 1034; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grimsley, 90 Ark. 64, 117 SW 1064. Cal.-Miller v. Pacific Electric R. Co., 169 Cal. 107, 145 P 1023. D. C.-Great Falls, etc., R. Co. v. Hammerly, 40 App. 196. Ga.-Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Johnson, 15 Ga. A. 22, 82 SE 629. Iowa.-Cotant v. Boone Suburban R. Co., 125 Iowa 46, 99 NW 115, 69 LRA 982. Kan.-Edwards v. Union Pac. R. Co., 90 Kan. 183, 133 P 728, AnnCas 1916A 137 and note. Mass.-Gurley V. Springfield St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 534, 92 NË 714. Mich.-Richardson v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 176 Mich. 413, 142 NW 832. Minn. Mathews v. Great Northern R. Co., 119 Minn. 49, 137 NW 175. Mo.-Biggie V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 159 Mo. A. 350, 140 SW 602; Chase v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 134 Mo. A. 655, 114 SW 1141. Nebr.-Omaha, etc., R. Co. v. Crow, 54 Nebr. 747, 74 NW 1066, 69 AmSR 741. N. J.-Martin v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 87 N. J. L. 648, 94 A 597; Exton v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 62 N. J. L. 7, 42 A 486, 56 LRA 508 [aff 63 N. J. L. 356, 46 A 1099, 56 LRA 508]. N. Y.-D'Arcy V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 165 App. Div. 757, 152 NYS 500; Boentgen v. New York, etc., R. Co., 36 App. Div. 460, 55 NYS 847 [rev 50 NYS 331]; Lycett v. Manhattan R. Co., 12 App. Div. 326, 42 NYS 431; Boland v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 138 NYS 1099. Pa-Tucker v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 227 Pa. 66, 75 A 991; Rathgebe v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 179 Pa. 31, 36 A 160. S. C.-Neal v. Southern R. Co., 92 S. C. 197, 75 SE 405 (waiting in an unheated depot); Brackett v. Southern R. Co., 88 S. C. 447, 70 SE 1026, AnnCas1912C 1212 (remaining in an unheated depot); Dilleshaw Charleston, etc., R. Co., 85 S. C. 334, 67 SE 304. V. R. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern Co. v. Missildine, (Civ. A.) 157 SW 245 (carried past station, walking back); Trinity, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (Civ. A.) 155 SW 361; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Perry, (Civ. A.) 147 SW 305 (waiting in an unheated depot); San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turney, 33 Tex. Civ. A. 626, 78 SW 256. Wis. Tarczek v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 162 Wis. 438, 156 NW 473. See also supra § 1492. [a] Waiting at flag station.What ordinary diligence would require of a passenger at a flag station, where the train failed to stop on a signal, who had to protect himself from resulting injury through cold and exposure, is a question for the jury. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. White, 135 Ga. 524, 69 SE 818. [b] Whether a passenger came to the station at an unreasonable time (1) before the arrival of a train is usually for the jury. Central of Georgía R. Co. v. Campbell, 10 Ala. A. 288, 64 S 540. (2) It is a question for the jury whether five hours before the departure of a train is an unreasonable time for one intending to become a passenger to remain in a railroad waiting room which a railroad company voluntarily keeps open for the time such person is there. Brackett v. Southern R. Co., 88 S. C. 447, 70 SE 1026, AnnCas1912C 1212. [c] Standing in space between moving trains.—(1) Whether a space between moving trains was so dangerous as to charge plaintiff with contributory negligence in standing therein is a question for the jury (Cook v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 120 Ark. 394, 179 SW 501), (2) as is also the question whether plaintiff was negligent in failing to stand in the exact center of the space (Cook v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., supra). [d] Leaning from platform to watch for train.-Where it appears that there had been a delay in running trains in a city subway for over half an hour, and that a passenger, while waiting on an unguarded station platform and leaning slightly forward to watch for a train, was struck by an express train which came at high speed without warning in a reverse way of the track, the question of whether the passenger was guilty of contributory negligence is for the jury. D'Arcy v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 165 App. Div. 757, 152 NYS 500. 76. U. S.-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]. Ala. Birmingham R. Light, etc., Co. v. Landrum, 153 Ala. 192, 45 S 198. 127 AmSR 25 (crossing after alighting from a street car). Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hutchinson, 101 Ark. 424, 142 SW 527; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Cleere, 76 Ark. 377, 88 SW 995; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Tomlinson, 69 Ark. 489, 64 SW 347. Iowa.-Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS 338 and note; Dieckmann v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. Kan.-Coon v. Atchison. etc., R. Co., 82 Kan. 311, 108 P 85, 27 LRANS 1013. ligence in boarding a train or car" while it was in motion,78 or at a place other than a station platKy.-Louisville R. Co. v. Kennedy, 162 Ky. 560, 172 SW 970, AnnCas 1916E 996 and note (passing behind a street car in front of a car on other track); Louisville R. Co. v. Mitchell, 138 Ky. 190, 127 SW 770; Louisville R. Co. v. Hartman, 83 SW 570, 26 KyL 1174. Md.-Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. McGugan, 102 Md. 270, 62 A 752. Mass.-Powers v. Old Colony St. Minn. Fonda v. St. Paul City R. Mo.-Adams v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 100 Mo. 555, 12 SW 637, 13 SW 509; Hornstein v. United R. Co., 97 Mo. A. 271, 70 SW 1105 (crossing behind a street car after alighting). Nebr.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. Lagerkrans, 65 Nebr. 566, 91 NW 358, 95 NW 2. V. N. J.-Walger v. Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 71 N. J. L. 356, 59 A 14; Redhing v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 641, 54 A 431. N. Y.-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]; Craven v. International R. Co., 100 App. Div. 157, 91 NYS 625; Wise v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 46 App. Div. 246, 61 NYS 530; Beecher v. Long Island R. Co., 35 App. Div. 292, 55 NYS 23 [aff 161 N. Y. 222, 55 NE 8991; Allenza v. Erie R. Co., 78 Misc. 659, 138 NYS 1024. N. C.-Ray v. Aberdeen, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 84, 53 SE 622. Pa.-Lee v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 246 Pa. 566, 92 A 719; Struble v. Pennsylvania Co., 226 Pa. 118, 75 A 17; Keifner v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 223 Pa. 50, 72 A 253; Girton v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 199 Pa. 147, 48 A 970. S. C.-Drawdy Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 75 S. C. 308, 55 SE 444. V. Vt. Wiley v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 504, 86 A 808. Wis.-Karr Light, Milwaukee V. etc., Tract. Co., 132 Wis. 662, 113 NW 62, 122 AmSR 1017, 13 LRANS 283. See also supra § 1492. [a] Whether it is gross negligence for one waiting at a station to go on the other side of the track, and recross after hearing the first signal of the approach of a train, is Drawdy v. a question for the jury. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 75 S. C. 308, 55 SE 444. 77. Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 111 Ark. 640, 163 SW 1157; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hartung. 95 Ark. 220, 128 SW 1025 (whether plaintiff acted with reasonable promptness in boarding). Ill-Harbauer v. Springfield Cons. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 178. Ind.-Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Jolly, 161 Ind. 80, 67 NE 935. Iowa. Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343. Kan.-Haas v. Wichita R., etc., Co.. 89 Kan. 613, 132 P 195, 48 LRANS 974. Mass.-Wheeler v. Boston El. R. Co., 220 Mass. 298, 107 NE 938; Lauchtamacher v. Boston El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 103, 100 NE 1068; Carter v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 205 Mass. 21, 91 NE 142; Plummer v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 499, 84 NE 849; McDonough v. Metropolitan R. Co., 137 Mass. 210. Mich. Foley v. Detroit, etc., R. Co.. 179 Mich. 586, 146 NW 186. Mo.-Danielson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 314, 162 SW 307; Scott v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 138 Mo. A. 196. 120 SW 131: Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 109 Mo. A. 228. 83 SW 783. N. J.-Kulman v. Erie R. Co., 65 N. J. L. 241, 47 A 497. form, or other regular stopping place," or in alighting from a train or cars while it was in motion,s N. Y.-Sweeny v. Union R. Co., 31 Misc. 797, 62 NYS 1034 [rev 31 Misc. 472, 64 NYS 453]; Michelson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 87 NYS 501; Ganz v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 84 NYS 579; Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 84 NYS 458. Pa.-Thorne v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 237 Pa. 20, 85 A 25; Rea v. Media, etc., Electric R. Co., 221 Pa. 129, 70 A 554; Begley v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 201 Pa. 84, 50 A 1009 (boarding from the wrong side); Donnelly v. Buffalo, etc., Tract. Co., 40 Pa. Super. 110. S. C.-Williford v. Southern R. Co., 85 S. C. 301, 67 SE 302. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rea, (Civ. A.) 74 SW 939 (boarding a crowded car). Wis.-Otto v. Milwaukee Northern R. Co., 148 Wis. 54, 134 NW 157 (person assisting a passenger boarding the lower step of a car). See also supra § 1493. the [a] Boarding crowded car.Where plaintiff was injured by being pushed or jostled from a car because of its overcrowded condition, question as to whether or not he was guilty of contributory negligence in boarding a car known to be crowded is one of fact and not of law. Harbauer v. Springfield Cons. R. Co., 155 Ill. A. 178. 78. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Flaharty, 96 Ill. A. 563; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gore, 96 Ill. A. 553. Ky.-Jonas V. South Covington, etc., R. Co., 162 Ky. 171, 172 SW 131, AnnCas1916E 965; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Scalf, 155 Ky. 273, 159 SW 804. Mich.-Orth V. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 162 Mich. 353, 127 NW 330. Minn. Hull v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 116 Minn. 349, 133 NW 852. Miss.-Wooten v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 79 Miss. 26, 29 S 61. Mo.-Nolan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 250 Mo. 602, 157 SW 637; Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co., 110 Mo. A. 458, 85 SW 137; Posch v. Southern Electric R. Co., 76 Mo. A. 601. Nebr.-Boles v. Lincoln Tract. Co., 98 Nebr. 405, 153 NW 499. Pa.-Johnson v. West Chester, etc., R. Co., 70 Pa. 357. Tex.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Shannon, 50 Tex. Civ. A. 194, 111 SW 1060. See also supra § 1495. [a] Illustrations.-(1) Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to board an electric street car while it was moving rapidly, or to when he ought have known that its speed had been checked, not to take on passengers, but to get past a broken circuit at a crossing, and that it was likely to recover speed immediately, so as to preclude his recovery for injuries received at the time, is a question for the jury. Leu v. St. Louis Transit Co., 110 Mo. A. 458, 85 SW 137. (2) The question of the contributory negligence of a strong man of twenty-eight years in attempting to board a car while in motion is for the jury, where the evidence as to the speed of the car is conflicting. Nolan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 250 Mo. 602, 157 SW 637. (3) Although an attempt by a man of sixty-two years, weighing two hundred pounds, to board a street car going six miles an hour may be negligent, and the jury would be justified in so finding, where it is not conclusively shown that the car was going six miles an hour, and where the conductor was apprised of the person's intention to board the car in motion and of the danger, and rang the bell twice, the question of contributory negligence is for the jury. Orth v. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 162 Mich. 353, 127 NW 330. 79. Brisbin v. Boston El. R. Co.. 207 Mass. 553, 93 NE 572. See also supra § 1494. V. 80. U. S.-New York, etc.. R. Co. Lincoln, 223 Fed. 896. 139 CCA 81 334; Camden, etc., R. Co. v. Rice, 137 Fed. 326, 69 CCA 656. Ala.-Atlanta, etc., Air Line R. Co. v. Wheeler, 154 Ala. 530, 46 S 262 (stepping on a defective footstool); Mobile Light, etc., Co. v. Walsh, 146 Ala. 290, 40 S 559, 9 AnnCas 852. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Brabbzson, 87 Ark. 109, 112 SW 222; Hill v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 85 Ark. 529, 109 SW 523; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Baker, 67 Ark. 531, 55 SW 941. Cal.-Franklin v. Southern California Motor Road Co., 85 Cal. 63, 24 P 723; Maxwell v. Fresno City R. Co., 4 Cal. A. 745, 89 P 367. Ga.-Tucker v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 122 Ga. 387, 50 SE 128. Ill.-Lakin v. South Side El. R. Co., 178 Ill. A. 176. Ind.-Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Walker, 177 Ind. 38, 97 NE 151; Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Keiter, 175 Ind. 268, 92 NE 982; Harris v. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co., 32 Ind. A. 600, 70 NE 407. etc., R. Co. V. Ky.-Louisville, Mount, 101 SW 1182, 31 KyL 210. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. Rosik, 107 Md. 138, 68 A 511. Mass.-Wakeley v. Boston El. R., 217 Mass. 488, 105 NE 436; Vine v. Berkshire St. R. Co., 212 Mass. 580, 99 NE 473; Silva v. Boston, etc.. R. Co., 204 Mass. 63, 90 NE 547; Meade v. Boston El. R. Co., 185 Mass. 327, 70 NE 197; Clement v. Boston, etc., R., 184 Mass. 312. 68 NE 1126; Gilman v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 454. 47 NE 193. Mich.-Spangler v. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 152 Mich. 405. 116 NW 373: Roulo v. Minot, 132 Mich. 317, 93 NW 870. Minn.-Street v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 124 Minn. 517, 145 NW 746. Mo.-Haskell v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 161 Mo. A. 64. 142 SW 1091; Lucas v. United R. Co., 154 Mo. A. 16, 133 SW 107; Macdonald v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. A. 374, 83 SW 1001. 119 N. J.-Paganini v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 385, 57 A 128. N. Y.-Truesdell v. Erie R. Co., App. Div. 371, 104 NYS 243: Schilling v. Union R. Co., 77 App. Div. 74, 78 NYS 1015; Wolf v. Third Ave. R. Co., 67 App. Div. 605, 74 NYS 336; Green v. Middlesex Val. R. Co., 31 App. Div. 412, 53 NYS 500, 28 NYCivProc 152. 6 NYAnnCas 107; Frawley v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 92 Misc. 145, 156 NYS 165 [aff 159 NYS 1113 mem]. N. C.-Morrison v. Charlotte Electric R., etc., Co., 123 N. C. 414, 31 SE 720. N. D.-Hall v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 16 N. D. 60, 111 NW 609, 14 AnnCas 960. Oh.-McKee v. Cincinnati Tract. v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 247 Pa. 598, 93 A 618. S. C.-Singletary v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.. 88 S. C. 565, 71 SE 57. Tex.-Texas Midland R. Co. v. Ritchey, 49 Tex. Civ. A. 409, 108 SW 732 (jumping from the car step); Selman v. Gulf, etc.. R. Co., (Civ. A.) 101 SW 1030; Martin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 56 SW 1011. Wash.-Breeden v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 60 Wash. 522, 111 P 771; Murray v. Seattle Electric Co., 50 Wash. 444, 97 P 458; Marbourg v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 49 Wash. 51, 94 P 649. See also supra §§ 1496, 1498. 1499. 81. U. S.-Rutledge v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 129 Fed. 94, 63 CCA 596. Ala. Dilburn V. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 156 Ala. 228, 47 S 210. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Plott, 108 Ark. 292, 157 SW 385; Kansas City Southern R. Co. V. Worthington, 99 Ark. 128, 141 SW 1173; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Fambro, 88 Ark. 12, 114 SW 230. Ind. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Collins, 59 Ind. 572, 108 NE 377, 1135. Kan.-Walters v. Missouri Pac. R. 83 or in alighting at an improper places2 or on the wrong side of the train or car. Where the evidence is conflicting or doubtful, it is also a question for the jury as to whether a passenger who was injured while in transit was at the time guilty of 84 contributory negligence, such as in going to the Co., 82 Kan. 739, 109 P 173, 28 LRA | NYS 1008 [aff 191 N. Y. 554 mem, Ky.-Paducah Tract. Co. v. Tolar, 162 Ky. 50, 171 SW 1009; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 135 Ky. 850, 123 SW 308. Md. New York, etc., R. Co. V. Coulbourn, 69 Md. 360, 16 A 208, 9 AmSR 430, 1 LRA 541. Mass.-Krock v. Boston El. R. Co.. 214 Mass. 398, 101 NE 968; Garland v. Boston El. R. Co., 210 Mass. 458, 97 NE 97; Comerford v. New York, etc., R. Co., 181 Mass. 528, 63 NE 936. Miss.-King v. Yazoo, etc., R. Co., 87 Miss. 270, 39 S 810. Mo.-Kelly v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 70 Mo. 604; Hays v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 182 Mo. A. 393, 170 SW 414; Barnett v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 138 Mo. A. 192, 120 SW 730; Scamell v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 504, 77 SW 1021. N. H.-Kambour v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A 624, 45 LRA NS 1188. N. J.-Kramer v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 79 N. J. L. 161, 74 A 256. N. Y.-Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128; Armstrong v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 66 Barb. 437 [aff 64 N. Y. 635 mem]; Bleichman v. Coney Island, etc., R. Co., 130 NYS 595; Quin v. Manhattan R. Co., 7 NYSt 252. N. C.-Kearney V. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 158 N. C. 521, 74 SE 593. Okl.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Isenberg, 150 P 123. Or.-Smitson v. Southern Pac. Co., 37 Or. 74, 60 P 907. Pa.-Leggett V. Western New York, etc., R. Co., 143 Pa. 39, 21 A 996; Enches v. New York, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. 194, 19 A 939; Delaware, etc.. Canal Co. v. Webster, 3 Pa. Cas. 280, 6 A 841. S. C.-Yarborough v. Columbia R., etc., Co., 100 S. C. 33, 84 SE 308. Tex.-Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. V. Taylor, (Civ. A.) 153 SW 355; Huchingson v. Texas Cent. R. Co., 55 Tex. Civ. A. 229, 118 SW 1123; Gist v. International, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 102 SW 457; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Highnote, (Civ. A.) 84 SW 365 [rev on other grounds 99 Tex. 23, 86 SW 923]. Va.-Thompson V. Norfolk, etc., Tract. Co.. 109 Va. 733, 64 SE 953. Wis.-Walters v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 113 Wis. 367, 89 NW 140. V. Wyo.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. Lampman, 18 Wyo. 106, 104 P 533, 25 LRANS 217, AnnCas1912C 788. See also supra §§ 1501-1506. [a] Directions of employee.Where the passenger left the train while in motion, and there was some evidence to show that the conductor had either told the passenger to get off or given him to understand that he could get off in safety, it was for the jury to say whether any such directions were given by the conductor as authorized the passenger to get off or made him chargeable with contributory negligence for so doing. Bucher v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 128. 82. Ala.-Southern R. Co. v. Burgess, 143 Ala. 364, 42 S 35. Ga. Atkinson v. Kennedy, 13 Ga. A. 273, 79 SE 84. Md.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. V. Jean, 98 Md. 546, 57 A 540. Mich. Smith v. Detroit United R. Co., 155 Mich. 466, 119 NW 640; Lucas v. Marquette City, etc., R. Co., 136 Mich. 142, 98 NW 980. Mo.- Wentz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 259 Mo. 450, 168 SW 1166, Ann Cas1916B 317. Nebr.-Otto v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 87 Nebr. 503, 127 NW 857, 138 Am SR 496, 31 LRANS 632. N. Y.-Walford v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 118 App. Div. 553, 102 Pa.-Watters v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 239 Pa. 492, 86 A 1021. R. I.-Boss v. Providence, etc., R. Co., 15 R. I. 149, 1 A 9. Tenn.-East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Conner, 15 Lea 254. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285. Wis.-Wolf v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 131 Wis. 335, 111 NW 514. Eng.-Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213. See also supra § 1500. [a] After announcement of station. In most cases where a train comes to a stop after a station is announced, and a passenger is injured in alighting at that place, the question as to whether he was induced by the announcement to believe that he had arrived at his destination, and whether he exercised due care in alighting, are questions for the jury. McGee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 208, 4 SW 739, 1 AmSR 706; Wentz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 259 Mo. 450, 168 SW 1166, AnnCas 1916B 317 (holding that, where a train stopped at a crossing about a quarter of a mile from the station, and immediately before, an employee had announced the name of the station and twenty minutes for supper, and proceeded to open the car doors and to lift the trap leading to the ground so that passengers could alight, a passenger alighting was not negligent as a matter of law); Taber v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 71 Ń. Y. 489; Wolford v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 118 App. Div. 553, 102 NYS 1008 [aff 191 N. Y. 554 mem, 85 NE 1118 mem]: East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Conner, 15 Lea (Tenn.) 254; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Garcia, 62 Tex. 285; Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213. See also supra § 1361. 83. Cal.-Hodges v. Southern Pac. Co., 3 Cal. A. 307, 86 P 620 (alighting on the side away from the station); Murphey v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 Cal. A. 275, 83 P 299. D. C.-Great Falls, etc., R. Co. v. Hill, 34 App. 304. Mo.-Layne v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 34, 157 SW 850. Pa.-Roberts v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 238 Pa. 404, 86 A 284, AnnCas 1914C 502 and note. Wash.-Elliott v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 68 Wash. 129, 122 P 614, 39 LRA NS 608; Owen v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 29 Wash. 207, 69 P 757. See also supra § 1499. 84. U. S.-New York, etc., R. Co. v. Kilby, 233 Fed. 252, 147 CCA 258 (placing the hand on the faceplates of the connecting vestibules). Ala.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Mulder, 42 S 742 (placing the hand on the door jamb); Birmingham R. Light, etc., Co. v. Bynum, 139 Ala. 389, 36 S 736. Ill. Barnes v. Danville St. R., etc., Co., 235 Ill. 566, 85 NE 921, 126 Am SR 237. Ind. Cleveland. etc., R. Co. V. Hadley, 40 Ind. A. 731, 82 NE 1025 [aff 170 Ind. 204. 82 NE 1025, 84 NE 13, 16 LRANS 527, 16 AnnCas 1]. Iowa.-Newman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 154 Iowa 72, 134 NW 585. Kan. Leslie v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 82 Kan. 152, 107 P 765, 27 LRA NS 646 (cattle shipper). Ky. Adams v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 134 Ky. 620, 121 SW 419, 135 AmSR 425, 21 AnnCas 321; Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. v. Lorton, 110 SW 857. 33 KyL 689; South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 86 SW 970, 27 KyL 811; Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Crady, 69 SW 706. 24 KyL 643. Md.-Jones v. United R., etc., Co., 85 Minn.-Simonds V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 87 Minn. 408, 92 NW 409. Mo.-Taylor v. Wabash R. Co., 38 SW 304, 42 LRA 110. Pa. Fern v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 250 Pa. 487, 95 A 590; Burns v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 233 Pa. 304, 82 A 246, AnnCas1913B 811; Hess v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 28 Pa. Super. 220. Tex.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Battle, (Civ. A.) 169 SW 1048; Hardin v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co., (Civ. A.) 100 SW 995; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Rea, 27 Tex. Civ. A. 549, 65 SW 1115. Va.-Virginian R. Co. v. Bell, 115 Va. 429, 79 SE 396. AnnCas1915A 804. W. Va.-Normile V. Wheeling Tract. Co.. 57 W. Va. 132, 49 SE 1030, 68 LRA 901. See also supra § 1507. [a] Placing arm on sill of open window-Whether a female passenger who was an inexperienced traveler was guilty of contributory negligence in placing her arm on the sill of an open window of the car after the window had twice fallen in her presence, and had been raised by other passengers for her accommodation, is a question for the jury. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Lorton, 110 SW 857. 33 KyL 689. [b] Not leaving car immediately after collision.-In an action for injuries to a street car passenger in a collision between a railroad engine and a street car which had become stalled on a crossing, whether plaintiff was negligent in not immediately leaving the car is for the jury. Barnes v. Danville St. R., etc., Co., 235 Ill. 566, 85 NE 921, 126 AmSR 237. 85. Ala.-Southern R. Co. v. Hundley, 151 Ala. 378, 44 S 195; Sweet v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 136 Ala. 166, 33 S 886. Ind. Wabash River Tract. Co. v. Baker, 167 Ind. 262, 78 NE 196; Public Utilities Co. v. Cosby, 60 Ind. A. 252, 110 NE 576; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Revalee, 17 Ind. A. 657, 46 NE 352. Mass.-Cutts v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 450, 89 NE 21. S. C.-Yarborough v. Columbia R., etc., Co., 100 S. C. 33, 84 SE 308; Davis v. Atlanta, etc., Co., 83 S. C. 66, 64 SE 1015. Air Line R. Tex.- Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Harris, 103 Tex. 422, 128 SW 897 [aff (Civ. A.) 120 SW 500]; Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Johnson, (Ĉiv. A.) 103 SW 239. See also supra § 1497. 86. Babcock v. Los Angeles Tract. Co., 128 Cal. 173, 60 P 780; Daniels v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (Mo. A.) 181 SW 599; Whitaker V. Staten Island Midland R. Co.. 72 App. Div. 468, 76 NYS 548; Murphy v. Union R. Co., 47 Misc. 672, 94 NYS 350. See also supra § 1497. 87. Ark. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Wyman, 119 Ark. 530, 178 SW 423; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gilbreath, .87 Ark. 572, 113 SW 200 (standing in the caboose), Ga.-Gardner V. Waycross AirLine R. Co., 97 Ga. 482, 25 SE 334, 54 AmSR 435. Ind. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Colson, 51 Ind. A. 225, 99 NE 433 (standing up just before collision); Romine v. Evansville, etc., R. Co., 24 Ind. A. 230, 56 NE 245 (standing near the door). Miss. Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Humphrey, 83 Miss. 721, 36 S 154. N. Y.-Butler v. New York City R. Co., 109 App. Div. 658, 96 NYS 254. See also supra § 1508. 88. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Richardson, 87 Ark. 101. 112 SW 212 (leaving his seat and going on the |