63 even, open country, it is governed by the rules regulating steam railroads as to the receipt and discharge of passengers." Thus it is the duty of the employees in charge of street cars to exercise toward every passenger getting on or alighting from a car that high degree of care which prudent persons engaged in the operation of cars exercise for the safety of passengers under like circumstances; but this degree of care is not in its application to all persons always the same, as what would be sufficient care as to one person might not be sufficient as to another.65 The carrier, however, is not required to guard against what cannot be 64 63. Robinson v. Helena, etc., R. Co., 38 Mont. 222, 99 P 837. 64. Conn. Moffitt v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 527, 86 A 16. Del.-Butler V. Wilmington City R. Co., 25 Del. 262, 78 A 871. Il-Klinck v. Chicago City R. Co.. 177 III. A. 165 [aff 262 II. 280, 104 NE 669, 52 LRANS 70, AnnCas1915B 177]; West Chicago St. R. Co. V. Buckley, 102 Ill. A. 314 [aff 200 Ill. 260, 65 NE 708]. Iowa.-Boice v. Des Moines City R. Co., 153 Iowa 472, 133 NW 657. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436, 136 SW 892; Lutz v. Louisville R. Co., 48 SW 1080, 20 KyL 1163. Md.-Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. Mass.-Martin v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 211 Mass. 535, 98 NE 579; Nichols v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 168 Mass. 528, 47 NE 427. Mich. Keeley v. City Electric R. Co., 168 Mich. 79, 133 NW 1085. Mo.-Wellman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 126, 118 SW 31: O'Brien v. St. Louis Transit Co., 185 Mo. 263, 84 SW 939, 105 AmSR 592; Gardner v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 167 Mo. A. 605, 152 SW 98; Thompson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 111 Mo. A. 465, 86 SW 465; Lehner v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 110 Mo. A. 215, 85 SW 110. N. J.-Paginini v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 60, 54 A 218. N. Y.-Stevenson V. Joline, App. Div. 181, 111 NYS 698. 127 V. N. C.-Brown v. Asheville Power, etc., Co., 171 N. C. 555, 88 SE 858. Tex.-Rapid Transit R. Co. Strong, (Civ. A.) 108 SW 394; Green v. Houston Electric Co., 40 Tex. Civ. A. 260, 89 SW 442. Wash.-Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 P 995. [a] Other statements of rule.—(1) A street railroad is bound to use the highest degree of diligence in affording passengers an opportunity to board its cars, whether at a regular stopping place or in case the car stops in response to a passenger's signal. Moffitt v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 527, 86 A 16. (2) A street car company must use all reasonable care to secure the safety of boarding or alighting passengers. Butler v. Wilmington City R. Co., 25 Del. 262, 78 A 871; Elliott v. Wilmington City R. Co.. 22 Del. 570, 73 A 1040; Waller v. Wilmington City R. Co., 21 Del. 374, 61 A 874. (3) Where it is customary for passengers to board and alight from a street car at a certain point, it is the duty of the street car employees to use ordinary care to protect passengers alighting there. Central Kentucky Tract. Co. v. Chapman, (Ky.) 124 SW 830. [b] Care in ascertaining desire to become passenger.-Street railroad employees are not required to exercise the highest degree of care to ascertain whether or not a particular person walking or standing on a public street desires to become a passenger, but ordinary care is all that is necessary in such cases. Foster V. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177, 76 P 995. [c] Emergency.-Where a passenger attempts to enter a street car by the passageway intended for the egress of passengers, and the con[10 C.J.-60] ductor tells her to stop, after he has given the signal for the starting of the car, there is no emergency relieving the conductor from the charge of negligence, if he does what a reasonably careful person under the circumstances would not have done. Boice v. Des Moines City R. Co., 153 Iowa 472, 133 NW 657. [d] Opening gates.-(1) Where a street car conductor stands at the partly open gates while a person is attempting to open them so that he can enter, and sees his efforts, it is the conductor's duty, when the car starts with the person's arm caught between the gates, to signal the motorman to stop the car; and if he knows that the car has been stopped for the purpose of permitting the person to enter it, and that the gates are only partially open, it is his duty to see that they are released and opened so that the person can enter without danger, and a failure in this regard will be negligence. Blades v. Des Moines City R. Co., 146 Iowa 580, 123 NW 1057. (2) Where a motorman opens the gate to admit passengers, it is his duty to keep it open until a passenger has had a fair opportunity to get into a position of safety. Stevenson v. Joline, 127 App. Div. 181, 111 NYS 698. (3) It is not negligence per se for a motorman to open the gate on the front platform of a trolley car before the car has come to a full stop. Paginini v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 60, 54 A 218. (4) But on the other hand, it has been held that opening the gate inclosing the platform of an elevated railroad car before the train is stopped may be negligence. McAlan v. New York, etc., Bridge, 43 App. Div. 374, 60 NYS 176. [e] Same rule as to boarding and alighting passengers.-The rule as to the care required by street car conductors in stopping and holding the cars to receive passengers is the same as that applicable in discharging them. Keeley v. City Electric R. Co., 168 Mich. 79, 133 NW 1085. a [f] Degree of care dependent on hazard.-What would constitute high degree of care in starting a street car stopped to turn a switch where passengers are not expected to alight might not constitute such a degree of care in starting a car stopped at a place for passengers to get aboard and alight, the amount of the diligence required depending on the hazard involved. Rapid Transit R. Co. v. Strong, (Tex. Civ. A.) 108 SW 394. [g] Guard rail up.-Where the guard rail on the side of a street car is up, although it has been pushed up by passengers and not by the conductor who has left his post to throw a switch, it is an invitation to passengers to board, and the railroad company is liable for injuries sustained in attempting to get on by the falling of the guard rail. Brown v. Asheville Power, etc., Co., 171 N. C. 555, 88 SE 858. Liability of street car company generally see supra § 1306. 65. Anderson V. Citizens' St. R. Co., 12 Ind. A. 194. 38 NE 1109: Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436, 136 SW 892; Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 132 App. Div. 399, 116 NYS 760. "The strong and active do not need the same degree of care to save them from injury as do children, or feeble, infirm or aged persons, or persons who are encumbered with babies or bundles. It might be due care as to one to start the car when he had gotten on the platform, and to another when he entered the car door, while as to another it would be negligence to start before he had reasonable opportunity to be seated. But all these classes of persons have the right to use the car, and to each considering his age, health and the conditions attending him the same high degree of care is due, and it is incumbent upon the operators of cars to exercise this high degree of care to discover the situation and condition of passengers so that they may be in a position to exercise towards each the degree of care his situation and condition demands." Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436, 440,. 136 SW 892. [a] A carrier's duty to a woman with an infant does not end when she alights, but continues until she has a reasonable opportunity to take her child from the hands of a fellow passenger who is handing it to her. Catterson v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 132 App. Div. 399, 116 NYS 760. V. V. 66. North Chicago St. R. Co. Canfield, 118 Ill. A. 353; Nirk Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 75 N. J. L. 642, 68 A 158; Kuhn v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 158 Wis. 525, 149 NW 220, AnnCas1916E 678. See also supra § 1348. a [a] Opening door.-Where a passenger on the rear platform of trolley car is injured by falling out of the door after it is opened by a conductor, and it does not appear that the door is maintained to assist passengers in preserving their equilibrium, but to allow ingress and egress, it is not negligence to open such door to enable passengers to alight where it is not a dangerous place for them to get down. Nirk v. Jersey City, etc., St. R. Co., 75 N. J. L. 642, 68 A 158. 67. North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Canfield, 118 Ill. A. 353. 68. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Buckley, 102 Ill. A. 314 [aff 200 111. 260, 65 NE 708]. Care at other than regular stopping places see generally supra § 1360. 69. Chicago City R. Co. v. Lowitz, 119 Ill. A. 360 [aff 218 Ill. 24. 75 NE 755]; Devroe v. Portland R., etc., Co., 64 Or. 547, 131 P 304. 70. Del.-File v. Wilmington City R. Co., 23 Del. 463, 80 A 623; Coyle v. People's R. Co.. 23 Del. 454, 80 A 638; Elliott v. Wilmington City R. Co., 22 Del. 570, 73 A 1040; Reiss Wilmington City R. Co., 67 A 153; Waller v. Wilmington City R. Co., 21 Del. 374, 61 A 874. V. Ill-Stewart v. East St. Louis R. Co.. 173 Ill. A. 477. Md. Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. Mass.-Olund V. Worcester Cons. St. R. Co.. 205 Mass. 544, 92 NE 720. Mich. Beattie V. Detroit United R. Co.. 158 Mich. 243, 122 NW 557 [cit Cyc]. Mo.-Bell V. Central Electric R. Co.. 125 Mo. A. 660, 103 SW 144; Buck v. People's St. R., etc., Co., 46 Mo. A. 555. [ 1365] c. Time for Boarding or Alighting in General. While receiving or discharging passengers, the car should be held stationary for a reasonable length of time, due regard being had to the circumstances and conditions surrounding the particular Pa.-Crissey v. Hestonville, etc., Pass. R. Co., 75 Pa. 83. Tex.-Texas Tract. Co. v. Hanson, (Civ. A.) 124 SW 494. [a] Although a street is covered with water making it necessary for passengers alighting from street cars to wade through it to reach the sidewalk, such condition, if reasonably safe, does not relieve the street railroad company from its duty to stop its car at the usual place to discharge or receive passengers. Stewart v. East St. Louis R. Co., 173 Ill. A. 477. [b] Ordinance fixing place.—(1) An ordinance providing where cars shall stop at street intersections is not competent for the purpose of showing where a street car should stop at a point where the cars merely turn a street corner. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Brown, 112 Ill. A. 351. (2) But, under an ordinance requiring a street railroad to stop at street crossings where passengers request it, where the conductor receives the fare and is then informed that the passenger wants to alight at a particular street. he must stop the car there to permit the passenger to alight. Texas Tract. Co. v. Hanson, (Tex. Civ. A.) 124 SW 494. a [d] Near side of street.-In the absence of evidence of a custom to stop street car having exits at both ends, so that the rear exit is over the near side of an intersecting street in a suburban part of town, it is not negligent to stop the car with the front exit touching the near side of the cross street, although thereby a passenger in the nighttime alighted from the rear exit, thinking she was on the cross street, and walked across the tracks at right angles, and fell into a culvert not in the right of way, the place of alighting being in itself safe. Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. Safety of place for boarding or alighting see generally supra § 1340. [e] Request to stop at cross street.-On the issue of negligence in stopping a car with the front exit touching the near side of a cross street, when plaintiff, a passenger, thought that the rear exit was on the cross street, whereby she was injured, a request by plaintiff to the conductor to let her off at the cross street cannot be construed into request to have the rear exit stop on the cross street. Hayes v. United R., etc., Co., 124 Md. 687, 93 A 226. a Duty to stop at destination see generally supra § 1264. 71. D. C.-Anacostia, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 8 App. 75. Mo.-Bell v. Central Electric R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 660, 103 SW 144; Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 459, 78 SW 838. N. Y. -Mulligan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 89 App. Div. 207, 85 NYS 791. R. I. Canham v. Rhode Island Co., 35 R. I. 177, 85 A 1050. Tex.-Fuller V. Denison, etc., R. Co.. 32 Tex. Civ. A. 399, 74 SW 940. But see Fox v. Denver City Tramway Co., 57 Colo. 511, 143 P 278 (holding that negligence of the motorman of an approaching street car in failing to stop, in response to the signal of a prospective passenger, at a place designated by a sign as a passengers,72 to allow them, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence on their part, to board or to alight in safety, and, if the carrier fails to hold the car a sufficient length of time to allow them such an opportunity, it is liable for the resulting injuries,73 although the passenger so injured is not regular stopping place, so as to afford an opportunity to board the car, is not such negligence as will support an action for injury to the passenger's person). [a] Negligence in obeying signal. -The failure of the motorman on a street car to exercise reasonable care in listening for signals to stop the car given by a passenger who desires to alight, in consequence of which he does not stop the car, and the passenger is injured in attempting to alight from it while in motion, is actionable negligence. Fuller v. Denison, etc., R. Co., 32 Tex. Civ. A. 399, 74 SW 940. [b] Custom.-Where street cars are in the habit of stopping on signal at a certain place, the failure so to do, resulting in injury to the person signaling, constitutes negligence. Trieber v. New York, etc., R. Co., 134 App. Div. 661, 119 NYS 439 [aff 201 N. Y. 520, 94 NE 1099]. 72. Benson v. Wilmington City R. Co., 24 Del. 202, 75 A 793; Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Korbe, (Ind. A.) 90 NE 483; Weeks v. Boston El. R. Co., 190 Mass. 563, 77 NE 654; Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 109 Mo. A. 228, 83 SW 783. [a] Where a passenger has a young girl with her, extra time should be allowed her in alighting, in view of her delay necessary to assist her companion to alight. Hannon v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 216, 77 SW 158. 73. U. S.-Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Tobriner, 147 U. S. 571, 13 SCt 557, 37 L. ed. 284; Van de Venter v. Chicago City R. Co., 26 Fed. 32. Cal.-Franklin v. Visalia Electric R. Co., 21 Cal. A. 270, 131 P 776. Colo.-Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. v. Marr, 26 Colo. A. 48, 141 P 142. Conn.-Elwood Connecticut R., etc., Co., 77 Conn. 145, 58 A 751, 1 AnnCas 779. V. Del.-Girardo v. Wilmington, etc., Tract. Co.. 90 A 476; Freeman v. Wilmington, etc., Tract. Co., 26 Del. 107, 80 A 1001; Butler v. Wilmington City R. Co., 25 Del. 262, 78 A 871; Benson v. Wilmington City R. Co., 24 Del. 202, 75 A 793; File v. Wilmington City R. Co., 23 Del. 463, 80 A 623; Coyle v. People's R. Co., 23 Del. 454, 80 A 638; Elliott v. Wilmington City R. Co., 22 Del. 570, 73 A 1040; Reiss v. Wilmington City R. Co., 67 A 153; Waller v. Wilmington City R. Co., 21 Del. 374, 61 A 874. D. C.-Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 11 App. 107; Anacostia, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 8 App. 75. Ga-Atlanta R. Co. v. Randall, 117 Ga. 165, 43 SE 412. Ill-Crauf v. Chicago City R. Co., 235 Ill. 262. 85 NE 235 [aff 136 Ill. A. 66]; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Brown, 178 111. 187, 52 NE 864; Chicago West Div. R. Co. v. Mills, 105 Ill. 63; Reynolds v. Alton, etc., Tract. Co., 194 Ill. A. 87; Robinson v. Chicago City R. Co.. 182 Ill. A. 33: Wayne v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 165 111. A. 353; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. James, 69 111. A. 609. Ind.-Terre Haute, etc.. Tract. Co. v. York, (A.) 110 NE 999; Neely v. Louisville, etc., Tract. Co., 53 Ind. A. 659, 102 NE 455. Kan.-Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. Ky-Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. App., 157 Ky. 246, 162 SW 1123; Samuels v. Louisville R. Co., 151 Ky. 90, 151 SW 37; Lexington R. Co. v. Lowe, 143 Ky. 339, 136 SW 618; Bullitt v. Louisville R. Co., 142 Ky. 670, 134 SW 1153: Paducah St. R. Co. v. Walsh, 58 SW 431, 22 KyL 532; Louisville R. Co. v. Rammaker, 51 SW 175, 21 KyL 250; Lutz v. Louisville R. Co., 48 SW 1080, 20 KyL 1163; Belt Electric Line Co. v. Tomlin, 40 SW 925, 19 KyL 433. El. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. Weir, 102 Md. 286, 62 A 588; Central R. Co. v. Smith, 74 Md. 212, 21 A 706. Mass.-McGlinchy V. Boston R. Co., 206 Mass. 7, 91 NE 882. Minn. Steeg v. St. Paul City R. Co., 50 Minn. 149, 52 NW 393, 16 LRA 379. Mo.-Barth v. Kansas City El. R. Co.. 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; Fields v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 624, 155 SW 845; Monroe v. United R. Co., 154 Mo. A. 39, 133 SW 645; Zeiler v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 613, 134 SW 1067; Kinyoun v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 477, 134 SW 15; Johnson v. St. Joseph R., etc., Co. 143 Mo. A. 376, 128 SW 243; Jones v. Springfield Tract. Co., 137 Mo. A. 408, 118 SW 675; Stevens v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 126 Mo. A. 619, 105 SW 26; Bell v. Central Electric R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 660, 103 SW 144; Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 109 Mo. A. 228, 83 SW 783; Duffy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 104 Mo. A. 235, 78 SW 831. Mont.-Lehane V. Butte Electric R. Co., 37 Mont. 564, 97 P 1038. N. Y.-Masterson v. Crosstown St. R. Co., 201 N. Y. 499, 94 NE 1086; Maher v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 52; Speck v. International R. Co., 133 App. Div. 802, 118 NYS 71; Johnston v. New York City R. Co., 120 App. Div. 456, 104 NYS 1039; De Rozas v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 296, 43 NYS 27; McSwyny v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 4 Silv. Sup. 495, 7 NYS 456; Lamline v. Houston, etc., R. Co., 14 Daly 144, 6 NYSt 248; Goldwasser v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 32 Misc. 682, 66 NYS 505; Flanagan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 31 Misc. 820, 64 NYS 379; Weiss v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 29 Misc. 332, 60 NYS 473; Friedman v. Consolidated Tract. Co., 24 Misc. 764, 53 NYS 410; Schalscha v. Third Ave. R. Co., 19 Misc. 141, 43 NYS 251. N. C.-Clark v. Durham Tract. Co., 138 N. C. 77, 50 SE 518, 107 AmSR 526. etc., Pa-Donnelly V. Buffalo, Tract. Co., 40 Pa. Super. 110. Tex.-San Antonio Tract. Co. V. Urban, (Civ. A.) 155 SW 1028; Citizens' R. Co. v. Farley, (Civ. A.) 136 SW 94. B. C.-Armishaw v. British Columbia Electric R. Co., 18 B. C. 152. "If a street car stops to take on or let off passengers, or stops at a place where passengers may get off or on, though not a regular stopping place, those in charge of the car must wait a sufficient length of time to enable passengers attempting to get off or on, to alight or get on in safety, by the exercise of reasonable diligence." Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 11 App. (D. C.) 107, 113. [a] Duty to stop for reasonable time. A street railroad company is under the absolute duty to stop its cars a reasonable length of time to allow passengers to board them. Citizens' R. Co. v. Farley, (Tex. Civ. A.) 136 SW 94. [b] Steam railroads compared.The duty of a street railroad company to afford its passengers reasonable opportunity to get off its cars is no greater than that of the ordinary steam railroad company. Boone v. Ŏakland Transit Co., 139 Cal. 490, 73 P 243. [c] When duty arises.-The duty of a street car company to give a person a fair and reasonable chance to get aboard its car does not arise 74 seen by those in charge of the car. And this rule applies, although the car has stopped for purposes other than taking on or setting down passengers, if it is stopped under circumstances which amount to an invitation to passengers to board or alight.75 The length of time for which the car must be held stationary must in general be such as to enable passengers attempting to get on or off to reach a place of safety either on the street or in the car before it is started.76 [§ 1366] d. Starting Car before Passenger Seated. As a general rule it is sufficient, as re until the car has been brought to a stop or the person has been invited to board it. Schwartz v. New York City R. Co., 55 Misc. 214, 105 NYS 1. [d] Dilatory passenger.-A street car is not required to wait an unreasonable time for a dilatory passenger. Fields v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 624, 155 SW 845. 74. Washington, etc., R. Co. V. Grant, 11 App. (D. C.) 107; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. James, 69 Ill. A. 609. 75. Ind. Citizens' St. R. Co. V. Jolly, 161 Ind. 80, 67 NE 935. Ky.-Belt Electric Line Co. v. Tomlin, 40 SW 925, 19 KyL 433. Mass.-Buckley v. Boston El. R. Co., 215 Mass. 50, 102 NE 75. Mo.-Parks V. St. Louis Transit Co., 119 Mo. A. 445, 96 SW 426. N. C.-Brown v. Asheville Power, etc., Co., 171 N. C. 555, 88 SE 858. Tex.-Citizens' R. Co. v. Hall, (Civ. A.) 138 SW 434. [a] Implied invitation.-The stopping of a street car at a place where it is customary for passengers to board the same constitutes an implied invitation to persons waiting to take passage thereon at that point to board the same if they desire so to do. Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Jolly, 161 Ind. 80, 67 NE 935; Brown v. Asheville Power, etc., Co., 171 N. C. 555, 88 SE 858. [b] Recall of invitation.-Where a passenger is not in a nosition to avail himself of the invitation to board a street car, the conductor may recall the invitation, implied from stopping, at any time before actually accepted. Buckley v. Boston El. R. Co., 215 Mass. 50, 102 NE 75. [c] Where a car is stopped only to discharge passengers, the carrier is not liable if a person attempts to board it, and the conductor warns him not to do so, in a tone of voice sufficiently loud to be heard by an ordinary person, although he did not in fact hear. Maxey v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 95 Mo. A. 303, 68 SW 1063. 76. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. McGinty, 158 Ala. 410, 48 S 491. Cal-Boone v. Oakland Transit Co., 139 Cal. 490. 73 P 243. D. C.-Anacostia, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 8 App. 75. Ill-Bloomington, etc., R. Co. v. Zimmerman, 101 I11. A. 184. Ind.-Union Tract. Co. v. Siceloff, 34 Ind. A. 511, 72 NE 266. Iowa.-Boice v. Des Moines City R. Co., 153 Iowa 472, 133 NW 657. Kan.-Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. La.-Sharp v. New Orleans City R. Co., 111 La. 395, 35 S 614, 100 AmSR 488. Mass.-Saunders v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 355, 103 NE 779: Flanagan v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 337, 103 NE 905: Benoit v. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 216 Mass. 320, 103 NE 830; Rand v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 569, 84 NE 841. Mich.-Formiller v. Detroit United R. Co., 164 Mich. 653, 130 NW 347; Beattie v. Detroit United R. Co., 158 Mich. 243, 246, 122 NW 557 [quot Cyc]. Minn.-Miller v. St. Paul City R. Co., 66 Minn. 192, 68 NW 862. Mo.-Dougherty v. Missouri R. Co., 81 Mo. 325 [aff 9 Mo. A. 478]; Brady 77 78 gards a boarding passenger, that the car is held 80 79 N. Y.-Canavan v. Interurban St. R. Co., 87 NYS 491. v. Springfield Tract. Co., 140 Mo. A. | Co., 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; Miller [a] Reason for rule.-"So common and unavoidable is the overcrowding of street cars that straps are usually provided, and, if these cars could not lawfully be started until all passengers were seated, or if acceleration of and checking speed could not be prompt, the efficiency of such cars would be seriously impaired." Ottinger v. Detroit United R. Co., 166 Mich. 106, 108, 131 NW 528, 34 LRANS 225, AnnCas1912D 578. [b] Signal to start.-A conductor is not bound to notify a strong, N. Y.-Maher v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 67 N. Y. 52; Copeland v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 418, 79 NYS 1054 [aff 177 N. Y. 570 mem, 69 NE 1121 mem]; Dochtermann v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. 13, 52 NYS 1051 [aff 164 N. Y. 586, 58 NE 1087]; Flanagan v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 31 Misc. 820, 64 NYS 379 [aff 32 Misc. 706 mem, 65 NYS 1132 mem]; Weiss v. Metro-healthy passenger who has boarded politan St. R. Co., 29 Misc. 332, 60 NYS 473. N. C.-Asbury v. Charlotte Electric R., etc., Co., 125 N. C. 568, 34 SE 654. Oh.-Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co. v. Holmes, 67 Oh. St. 153, 65 NE 877. Pa.-Holmes v. Allegheny Tract. Co.. 153 Pa. 152, 25 A 640. Tenn. Memphis St. R. Co. v. Shaw, 110 Tenn. 467, 75 SW 713. [a] In vestibule.-An elevated railroad company is not liable for injuries sustained in starting a car before a passenger has entered the car from the vestibule. Martin v. Boston El. R. Co., 216 Mass. 361, 103 NE 828. Duty to see that passenger has reached a place of safety generally see infra § 1369. 77. See supra § 1365; infra § 1369. 78. Walters v. Pennsylvania Tract. Co., 161 Pa. 36, 28 A 941. [a] In Pennsylvania it has been said that where a street car has stopped, or is in the act of stopping. or is in such a condition of running or stopping as induces an intending passenger to think that it is about to stop, the passenger has a right to get on, and, if the car starts before he is safely seated in the car, and an injury results therefrom, the company is liable. Walters v. Pennsylvania Tract. Co., 161 Pa. 36, 28 A 941; Austrian v. United Tract. Co., 19 Pa. Super. 329. 79. U. S.-Bellamy V. Missouri, etc.. R. Co., 215 Fed. 18, 131 CCA 326, LRA1915A 1. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Hawkins, 153 Ala. 86, 44 S 983, 16 LRANS 1077. D. C.-Connor v. Washington R., etc.. Co., 43 App. 329. Ky.-Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 436, 136 SW 892; Lexington R. Co. v. Britton, 130 Ky. 676, 114 SW 295; Bennett v. Louisville R. Co., 122 Ky. 59, 90 SW 1052, 28 KyL 998, 121 AmSR 453, 4 LRANS 558 and note: Howard v. Louisville R. Co., 105 SW 932, 32 KyL 309. La.-Sharp V. New Orleans City R. Co., 111 La. 395, 35 S 614, 100 AmSR 488. Mass. -Benoit v. Boston, etc., St. R. Co., 216 Mass. 320. 103 NE 830; Sauvan v. Citizens' Electric St. R. Co., 197 Mass. 176, 83 NE 405; Weeks v. Boston El. R. Co., 190 Mass. 563, 77 NE 654. Mich. Ottinger v. Detroit United R. Co., 166 Mich. 106, 131 NW 528, 34 LRANS 225 and note, AnnCas 1912D 578 and note. Mo.-Barth v. Kansas City El. R. the car, but has not secured a seat, that he is about to give the signal to start the car. Weeks v. Boston El. R. Co., 190 Mass. 563, 77 NE 654. a [c] Where there is no vacant seat, the passenger should be given a reasonable time to reach a place where he may support himself while standing, and if the car is started before the passenger has reached place of safety, the start must be gradual to avoid the danger of throwing him down. Miller V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 414, 102 SW 592. R.. etc.. 80. Ala.-Birmingham Co. v. Hawkins, 153 Ala. 86, 44 S 983, 16 LRANS 1077. Ky. Howard v. Louisville R. Co., 105 SW 932, 32 KyL 309. Mass.-Nolan v. Newton St. R. Co., 206 Mass. 384, 92 NE 505; Sauvan v. Citizens' Electric St. R. Co., 197 Mass. 176, 83 NE 405. Mo.-Barth v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 142 Mo. 535, 44 SW 778; Gabriel v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 164 Mo. A. 56, 148 SW 168. N. Y.-Dochtermann V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. 13, 52 NYS 1051 [aff 164 N. Y. 586 mem, 58 NE 1087 mem]. Utah.-Dickert v. Salt Lake City R. Co., 20 Utah 394, 59 P 95. [a] Woman thrown to floor.Where the construction and method of propulsion of a surface car are such as to involve a serious jerk in starting, a jury would be warranted in inferring want of ordinary care in its operation from the fact that a woman passenger was thrown to the floor and injured through the starting of the car before she was able to reach a seat. Dochtermann V. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 32 App. Div. 13, 52 NYS 1051 [aff 164 N. Y. 586 mem, 58 NE 1087 mem]. 81. U. S.-Bellamy V. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 215 Fed. 18, 131 CCA 326, LRA1915A 1. D. C.-Connor v. Washington R., etc., Co., 43 App. 329. Ky.-Lexington R. Co. v. Britton, 130 Ky. 676, 114 SW 295; Bennett v. Louisville R. Co., 122 Ky. 59. 90 SW 1052, 28 KyL 998, 121 AmSR 453, 4 LRANS 558 and note. Mich.-Ottinger v. Detroit United R. Co., 166 Mich. 106, 131 NW 528, 34 LRANS 225 and note, AnnCas 1912D 578 and note. Mo.-Brady V. Springfield Tract. Co., 140 Mo. A. 421, 124 SW 1070. N. J.-Herbich v. North Jersey, etc., R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 574, 52 A 357 been held that the driver of a stagecoach should, before commencing his journey, ascertain that the passengers are seated; but in his journey over ordinary streets and highways, where frequent or occasional necessary stoppages are made because of crowds, parades, or the like, or because of the use of the street or highway by others of the public, he is not bound, before he starts again, to give notice to the passengers that he is about to do so, or to ascertain whether the passengers remained seated as before the stoppage was made.82 [1367] e. Starting Car While Passenger Board [rev 65 N. J. L. 381, 47 A 427]. Wash.-Rice v. Puget Sound Tract., etc., Co., 80 Wash. 47, 141 P 191. [a] "The passenger may be so infirm, by reason of infancy, or old age, or sickness, or lameness, or other cause, that even the ordinary movement of a street car in starting before he is seated would be likely to throw him down." Herbich v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 574, 576, 52 A 357 [rev 65 N. J. L. 381, 47 A 427]. [b] Rule applied.-Where an old lady in an enfeebled condition boards a street car, the conductor who has watched her is negligent in giving a signal to start the car before she has had a reasonable time in which to take a seat, rendering the railroad liable for injuries sustained to her by being thrown against the side of a seat by the starting of the car. Brady v. Springfield Tract. Co., 140 Mo. A. 421, 124 SW 1070. [c] The fact that one taking passage on a street car is large and fleshy does not render it negligence for the operatives of the car to fail to keep it stationary until he has seated himself. Bennett v. Louisville R. Co., 122 Ky. 59, 90 SW 1052, 28 KyL 998, 121 AmSR 453, 4 LRÁNS 558 and note. to be [d] Reasonable opportunity take seat.A carrier is liable for injuries from a fall received by a woman who with a baby in her arms boards a street car which starts before she reaches a seat, only if she requires more than ordinary care, and if that fact can, by the exercise of the highest degree of care, discovered, and if notwithstanding her condition and its knowledge, the carrier fails to allow her a reasonable opportunity to take a seat before starting the car; and hence an instruction in substance telling the jury that, if her situation imposes on the carrier the duty of exercising more than usual care, then she is entitled to recover if the car started before she was seated is erroneous, as placing too great a burden on the carrier. Louisville R. Co. v. Wilder, 143 Ky. 486, 136 SW 892. 82. Haile v. Clayton, etc., Co., 61 N. J. L. 197, 38 A 805. 83. See also supra § 1365; infra § 1369. 84. U. S.-Memphis St. R. Co. v. Huggins, 215 Fed. 37, 131 CCA 345. Cal-Joyce v. Los Angeles R. Co., 147 Cal. 274, 82 P 204. Colo.-Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cowan, 51 Colo. 64, 116 P 136. Conn.-Post v. Hartford St. R. Co., 72 Conn, 362, 44 A 547. Ill-Crauf v. Chicago City R. Co., 235 TIL. 262, 85 NE 235 [aff 136 I11. A. 66]; Chicago West Div. R. Co. v. Mills, 105 Ill. 63; Fitzgerald V. Sampsell, 191 I. A. 366. Ind.-Indianapolis Tract., etc., Co. v. Miller, 43 Ind. A. 717, 83 NE 526; Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Leaf, 40 Ind. A. 214, 79 NE 1066. Iowa.-Lang v. Marshalltown Light, etc., Co., 166 Iowa 548, 147 NW 917; Farrell v. Citizens' Light, etc., Co., 137 Iowa 309, 114 NW 1063; Root v. Des Moines City R. Co., 113 Iowa 675, 83 NW 904. Ky.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Hardin, 157 Ky. 13, 162 SW 541: ing or Alighting.83 Regardless of the length of time for which a car is stopped, and although it is stopped for a length of time which would be reasonable under ordinary conditions, if the conductor or the motorman in charge of the car knows or has reason to know that a passenger is in the act of boarding or alighting, it is negligence suddenly or recklessly to start or otherwise to move the car, whereby the passenger is injured. This rule applies, although the car has stopped at a place which is not a regular stopping place, and for a purpose other than for receiving or dischargTract. Co. V. v. Rammaker, 51 SW 175, 21 KyL 250. Central Kentucky La.-Donovan v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 132 La. 239, 61 S 216, 48 LRANS 109; Sharp v. New Orleans City R. Co., 111 La. 395, 35 S 614, 100 AmSR 488; Bourque V. New Orleans City, etc., R. Co., 24 S 622; Shannon v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 4 La. A. (Orleans) 302. Md. United R., etc., Co. v. Rosik, 107 Md. 138, 68 A 511. Mass. O'Loughlin v. Bay State St. R. Co., 221 Mass. 65, 108 NE 905. Mich.-Orth V. Saginaw Valley Tract, Co., 162 Mich. 353, 127 NW 330; Burke v. Bay City Tract., etc., Co., 147 Mich. 172. 110 NW 524; Selby v. Detroit R. Co., 141 Mich. 112. 104 NW 376. Mo.-Benjamin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 245 Mo. 598. 151 SW 91; Westervelt v. St. Louis Transit Co., 222 Mo. 325, 121 SW 114; Wellman v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 219 Mo. 126, 118 SW 31: Behen v. St. Louis Transit Co., 186 Mo. 430, 85 SW 346: Reagan v. St. Louis Transit Co., 180 Mo. 117, 79 SW 435; Bennett v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 180 SW 1050; Bobbitt v. United R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 424, 153 SW 70; Ely v. Southwest Missouri R. Co., 141 Mo. A. 708, 125 SW 833; Ghio v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 710, 103 SW 142; Green v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 122 Mo. A. 647, 99 SW 218; Parks v. St. Louis Transit Co., 119 Mo. A. 445, 96 SW 426; Kohr v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 117 Mo. A. 302, 92 SW 1145. Mont.-Knuckey v. Butte Electric R. Co.. 45 Mont, 106, 122 P 280. N. J.-Davis v. Camden. etc., R. Co., 73 N. J. L. 415, 63 A 843. N. Y.-Ganiard v. Rochester City. etc., R. Co., 50 Hun 22, 2 NYS 470 [aff 121 N. Y. 661 mem. 24 NE 1092 mem]; Fine v. Interurban St. R. Co., 45 Misc. 587, 91 NYS 43; Schoenfeld v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 Misc. 201. 81 NYS 644. N. C.-Clark v. Durham Tract. Co., 138 N. C. 77, 50 SE 518, 107 AmSR 526. Okl-Shawnee-Tecumseh Tract. Co. v. Wollard, 153 P 1189. Or. Tompkins v. Portland R., etc., Co., 77 Or. 174, 150 P 758. Pa.-White v. Columbia, etc., R. Co., 215 Pa. 462, 64 A 676. Tex.-El Paso Electric R. Co. v. Boer, (Civ. A.) 108 SW 199; International, etc., R. Co. v. Poe, (Civ. A.) 62 SW 1071. Wash.-Hendrickson v. Grays Harbor R., etc., Co., 88 Wash. 145, 152 P 992: Foster v. Seattle Electric Co., 35 Wash. 177. 76 P 995. Wis.-Jirachek v. Milwaukee Electric R.. etc., Co., 139 Wis. 505, 121 NW 326, 131 AmSR 1070. Que.-Montreal St. R. Co. V. Marins, 12 DomLR 620. B. C.-Armishaw v. British Columbia Electric R. Co., 18 B. C. 152, 14 DomLR 393. 84 [b] Notice or knowledge.-(1) Where a passenger on a street car arises from her seat and steps on to the step while the car is standing still, and either the motorman or the conductor observes such act, it is sufficient notice of her desire to alight. Joyce v. Los Angeles R. Co.. 147 Cal. 274, 82 P 204. (2) Where a street car conductor signals for the car to stop as it approaches a certain street, the operators of the car are bound to know that passengers may act on such signal and go to the platform to alight when the car stops. Ranous v. Seattle Electric Co., 47 Wash, 544, 92 P 382. (3) Street car employees must take notice if the position of one who is attempting to board the car is such that the sudden starting of the car would endanger him. Fields V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 624, 155 SW 845. [c] Liability not dependent on knowledge.-A carrier's liability for injuries to a passenger caused by starting the car while she is alighting with care does not depend on the knowledge of its employees that she is in the act of alighting, where the car has been stopped in response to her request at a usual stopping place. Jones v. Springfield Tract. Co., 137 Mo. A. 408, 118 SW 675. [d] Where a conductor sees that a passenger is in a position of danger in attempting to board the car as it is starting, it is his duty to signal the motorman to stop the car. Blades v. Des Moines City R. Co.. 146 Iowa 580. 123 NW 1057; Shanahan v. St. Louis Transit Co.. 109 Mo. A. 228, 83 SW 783 (holding that, where plaintiff was injured by the premature starting of a street car while he was attempting to board it, an instruction that if the jury found that, after seeing plaintiff's dangerous position, the conductor by signaling to the motorman could have stopped the car in time to have prevented the injury, and failed to exercise ordinary care SO to do, plaintiff was entitled to recover, etc.. was proper). 85. Conn. Moffitt v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 527, 86 A 16. Iowa.-Cohen v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 141 Iowa 469, 119 NW 964: Beringer v. Dubuque St. R. Co., 118 Iowa 135, 91 NW 931. Ky. South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Core, 96 SW 562, 29 KyL 836. Md. United R., etc., Co. v. Hertel, 97 Md. 382, 55 A 428. Mo.-Murphy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 269, 102 SW 64: Jacobson v. St. Louis Transit Co.. 106 Mo. A. 339, 80 SW 309. Nebr.-Lang v. Omaha, etc., St. R. Co., 96 Nebr. 740, 148 NW 964. [a] Knowledge essential. Where a street car passenger attempts to alight when the car stops at an unusual place, knowledge of the conductor, or proof of facts charging him with knowledge, that the passen[a] Custom no excuse.-The fact ger is attempting to get off at that it is customary for passengers such place is essential to a recovery to leave the car while in motion for personal injuries caused by the does not excuse the act of the driver starting of the car while he is in starting a car before a passendoing so. Lang v. Omaha, etc., St. ger has alighted. Louisville R. Co. R. Co., 96 Nebr. 740, 148 NW 964. 89 86 ing passengers, particularly where the stop at such unusual place is under circumstances which import an invitation to board or alight;87 and it also applies, although the car has been stopped in violation of the carrier's rules,88 or of a city ordinance. Where, however, the employees in charge of a car do not know, or have reason to know, that a passenger is attempting to board or alight, it is not negligence to start the car,90 unless it is started in an unusual and violent manner;91 and this is particularly true where the car has stopped at a point other than a regular stopping place for some reason other than for receiving or discharging pas .92 sengers; nor is it negligence to move the car after a passenger has boarded it in safety, unless it is moved in a violent, unusual, or reckless manner.93 A sudden or unusual movement of a street car while a passenger is boarding or alighting is not negligence per se, but its culpability depends on the circumstances of time and place, or of knowledge that such movement may injure a passenger;94 and such jerk or movement may constitute negligence for which the carrier is liable, where it is made at a regular stopping place or at a place where it is customary for the company to take on or discharge passengers, or where the employees in charge of El. R. Co., 214 Mass. 103, 100 NE 1068. 95 88. Dreyfus v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 124 Mo. A. 585, 102 SW 53; Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 459, 78 SW 838. [b] Near street crossing.-Em-| ground. Monroe v. United R. Co., ployees in charge of a street car 154 Mo. A. 39, 133 SW 645. stopping at a point near a street crossing where passengers customarily get off, although such point is not a regular stopping place, must exercise due care before again starting the car to see that passengers getting on or off will not be endangered by putting the car in motion. Monroe v. United R. Co., 154 Mo. A. 39, 133 SW 645. [c] At switch-Where the employees of a street car company in charge of a car see a passenger in the act of alighting when the car has stopped at a switch, it is their duty not to start the car until he has alighted in safety, although a regular stopping place has been established only a short distance further on. South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Core, 96 SW 562, 29 KyL 836. 86. Iowa. Beringer v. Dubuque St. R. Co., 118 Iowa 135, 91 NW 931. Ky-Central Kentucky Tract. Co. v. Chapman, 130 Ky. 342, 113 SW 438. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. Woodbridge, 97 Md. 629, 55 A 444. Mo.-Kinyoun v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 153 Mo. A. 477, 134 SW 15; Jacobson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 106 Mo. A. 339, 80 SW 309. N. Y.-Dean v. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 220, 54 NYS 490. the no reason to [a] Where the stop is at a railroad crossing, not a regular stopping place, and is merely to look out for any steam train, those in charge of have street car suppose that a passenger will attempt to leave at that point, and unless they know that a passenger is attempting so to do, they are not negligent in starting without seeing whether he has alighted, and this is true, although the passenger had, when getting on, notified the conductor that he wished to get off at the street next before the railroad crossing, and the car had not stopped there. Central Kentucky Tract. Co. v. Chapman, 130 Ky. 342, 113 SW 438. [b] Car stopped because of obstruction.—It may be negligence suddenly to start a street car which has been stopped by an obstruction on the track, if a passenger is in the act of getting on or off, and the conductor in the exercise of due care would be aware of the fact. Dean V. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 220, 54 NYS 490. 87. Coyle v. People's R. Co., 23 Del. 454, 80 A 638; Elliott v. Wilmington City R. Co., 22 Del. 570. 73 A 1040; Hufford v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 130 Mo. A. 638, 109 SW 1062; Robinson v. Helena, etc., R. Co., 38 Mont. 222. 99 P 837. [a] Stopping on near side of street. Notwithstanding the usual stopping place of a street car may be on the further side of a street intersection, yet if it stops before crossing the street, and a passenger is led to believe that it is in obedience to her signal to give her an opportunity to alight, it will be negligence of the carrier's employees in charge knowingly to allow the car to start while the passenger is alighting so as to throw her to the 89. Parks v. St. Louis Transit Co., 119 Mo. A. 445, 96 SW 426; Gilroy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 117 Mo. A. 663, 92 SW 1152. 90. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. McGinty, 158 Ala. 410, 48 S 491. Ga. Augusta R. Co. v. Glover, 92 Ga. 132, 18 SE 406. Ky. Samuels v. Louisville R. Co., 151 Ky. 90, 151 SW 37. La.--Perkins v. New Orleans etc.. Co., 127 La. 177, 53 S 484. R., Mass.-Coneton v. Old Colony St. Mo.-Fields v. Metropolitan St. R. N. Y.-Steuer v. Metropolitan St Tex.-San Antonio Tract. Co. Y Wash.-Woodman v. Seattle Elec- [a] Mutual duties.-The duty of a carrier to stop its car a reason to ably sufficient time to allow a pas- V. [b] The passenger should give notice of his desire to alight in order to charge the carrier with the duty of giving him a proper opportunity. McDonald V. Montgomery St. R. Co., 110 Ala. 161, 20 S 317; Brown v. Interurban St. R. Co., 43 Misc. 374, 87 NYS 461 (holding that a passenger cannot recover for injuries sustained in alighting from a street car by reason of the car starting forward after having stopped, in the absence of any notice to the conductor of the passenger's intention to alight). [c] In the absence of notice prior to the signal to start the car, street car employees need not anticipate that parties at or near a stopping place intend to become passengers. Fields v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 169 Mo. A. 624, 155 SW 845. 91. Samuels v. Louisville R. Co., 151 Ky. 90, 151 SW 37; San Antonio Tract. Co. v. Badgett, (Tex. Civ. A.) 158 SW 803. Mo.-McCarty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. A. 596, 80 SW 7. N. Y.-Foden v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 136 App. Div. 765, 121 NYS 420; Laverty v. Interurban St. R. Co., 49 Misc. 510, 98 NYS 846; McCarthy v. Interurban St. R. Co., 88 NYS 388. Oh.-Packard v. Toledo Tract. Co., 22 Oh. Cir. Ct. 578, 12 Oh. Cir. Dec. 822. Pa.-Blair v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 36 Pa. Super. 319. [a] Stopped by traffic.-Where a car stops or slows down at an unusual place, by reason of the exigencies of city traffic, and a person attempting to enter the car without the knowledge of the motorman or conductor is thrown by the sudden starting of the car, the carrier is not liable for inasmuch his injuries, as the person injured has not acquired the rights of a passenger. Blair v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 36 Pa. Super, 319. car [b] At railroad crossing.-Where a street car has stopped on approaching a crossing at a place not a regular stopping place for discharging or taking on passengers, and the conductor goes forward to the railroad track, ascertains that the track is clear, and signals the motorman to come on, it is not negligence to start the without first ascertaining whether anyone is about to get on the car; hence a person who, taking advantage of the stopping of the car, is in the act of getting on without giving notice of his intention of so doing, and is thrown off by the sudden jerk which is usual in starting an electric car, dragged, and injured, cannot recover damages from the company for his injuries. Packard v. Toledo Tract. Co., 22 Oh. Cir. Ct. 578, 12 Oh. Cir. Dec. 822. 93. Howard v. Louisville R. Co., 105 SW 932, 32 KyL 309. 94. Ala. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 60 S 262. Ill-Wimmer v. Chicago R. Co., 185 Ill. A. 523. Mass.-O'Loughlin V. Bay State St. R. Co., 221 Mass. 65, 108 NE 905. Mo.-Cooke v. Springfield Tract. Co., 144 Mo. A. 451, 129 SW 265. S. D.-Wright v. Sioux Falls Tract. System, 28 S. D. 379, 133 NW 696. Wis.-Tabak v. Milwaukee Electric R., etc., Co., 161 Wis. 422, 154 NW 694. But see Brady v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 33 Misc. 793, 67 NYS 588 (holding that, in an action against a street railroad company for injuring a passenger while getting off a car, it was not error to instruct that if, while he was getting off, the car was started suddenly, so as to produce a jerking motion, it was in itself an act of negligence). [a] Sudden jerk as evidence of negligence.-To start a car with a sudden jerk while the passenger is alighting is evidence of negligence, in an action by the passenger for resulting injuries. Cooke v. Springfield Tract. Co., 144 Mo. A. 451, 129 SW 265. 95. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. 92. Ga.-Augusta R. Co. v. Glover, | Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 60 S 262; 92 Ga. 132, 18 SE 406. Ill-Chicago West Division R. Co. v. Mills, 91 Ill. 39. Mass.-Lauchtamacher V. Boston Smith v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 147 Ala. 702, 41 S 307; Chicago City R. Co. v. Dinsmore, 162 111. 658, 44 NE 887; Bourque v. New Orleans |