City, etc., R. Co., (La.) 24 S 622; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City, etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 195, 25 AmR 171. 96. Birmingham R., etc.. Co. v. Barrett, 179 Ala. 274, 60 S 262. See also cases supra note 95. 97. Ala.--Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. James, 121 Ala. 120, 25 S 847. Ark. Little Rock R., etc.. Co. v. Doyle, 79 Ark. 378, 96 SW 353. Del.-Freeman v. Wilmington, etc,, Tract. Co., 26 Del. 107, 80 A 1001. Ill-Springfield Consol. R. Co. v. Hoeffner, 175 III. 634, 51 NE 884; Chicago West Div. R. Co. v. Mills, 91 II. 39; Crotzer v. Freeport R., etc., Co., 150 Ill. A. 470. Ind. Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 146 Ind. 430, 45 NE 662; Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 105 Ind. 62, 4 NE 441; Dresslar v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 19 Ind. A. 383, 47 NE 651. Iowa.-Cohen v. Sioux City Tract. Co., 141 Iowa 469, 119 NW 964; Heinze v. Interurban R. Co., 139 Iowa 189, 117 NW 385, 21 LRANS 715 and note. Ky.-Kentucky Tract., etc.. Co. v. Waits. 167 Ky. 236, 180 SW 356; Sandlin v. Lexington R. Co., 110 SW 374, 33 KyL 518. Mich.-Orth V. Saginaw Valley Tract. Co., 162 Mich. 353, 127 NW 330. Minn. Skelton v. St. Paul City R. Co., 88 Minn. 192, 92 NW 960. Mo.-Moeller v. United R. Co., 242 Mo. 721, 147 SW 1009; Cobb v. Lindell R. Co., 149 Mo. 135, 50 SW 310; Musick v. United R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 64, 134 SW 31; Chalmers v. United R. Co., (A.) 131 SW 903; Kroner v. St. Louis Transit Co., 107 Mo. A. 41, 80 SW 915; Eikenberry v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 442, 80 SW 360. N. J.-Solomon v. Public Service R. Co., 87 N. J. L. 284, 92 A 942; Schmidt v. North Jersey St. R. Co., (Sup.) 58 A 72. N. Y. Morrison v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 130 N. Y. 166, 29 NE 105; Butler v. Glens Falls, etc., St. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 112, 24 NE 187; Eppendorf v. Brooklyn, etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 195, 25 AmR 171; Sexton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 App. Div. 26, 57 NYS 577; Bachrach v. Nassau Electric R. Co.. 35 App. Div. 633, 54 NYS 958; Dean v. Third Ave. R. Co., 34 App. Div. 220, 54 NYS 490; Savage v. Third Ave. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 556, 51 NYS 1066; Garner v. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 56 Misc. 500, 107 NYS 134; Pfeffer v. Buffalo R. Co., 4 Misc. 465, 24 NYS 490 [aff 144 N. Y. 636 mem, 39 NE 494 mem]; Moylan v. Second Ave. R. Co., 13 NYS 494. Pa.-Powelson v. United Tract. Co., 204 Pa. 474, 54 A 282; Walters v. Philadelphia Tract. Co., 161 Pa. 36, 28 A 941; Picard v. Ridge Ave. Passenger R. Co., 147 Pa. 195, 23 A 566; Austrian v. United Tract. Co., 19 Pa. Super. 329. Utah.-Paul v. Salt Lake City R. Co.. 30 Utah 41, 83 P 563. Wash.-Marbourg v. Seattle, etc., R. Co., 49 Wash. 51, 94 P 649; Ranous v. Seattle Electric Co., 47 Wash. 544, 92 P 382. Ont.-Cooledge v. Toronto R. Co., 9 OntWR 222. [a] Where a street car conductor signals the car to stop, and it slows down in response to the signal as if to stop at a regular stopping place, it is the duty of the conductor to see that, before he starts the car forward, none of the passengers is in a position of peril caused by the conditions thus brought about. Ft. Wayne, etc., Tract. Co. v. Olinger, 46 Ind. A. 733, 90 NE 652; Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Korbe, (Ind. A.) 90 NE 483. [b] If the car does not stop the passenger should not attempt to get on or off, and the failure to stop will not be the proximate cause of an injury resulting from his attempting so to do. White v. West End St. R. Co., 165 Mass. 522, 43 NE 298. Contributory negligence in such cases see infra §§ 1495, 1501-1506. [c] Invitation to alight.-Wherea conductor of a street car fails to stop at the usual place, as requested by a passenger, but, after passing it, slows up in the middle of a block, so as clearly to invite him to alight, and he attempts to get off, with the knowledge of the conductor, it is the conductor's duty not to cause the car to start up or to jerk so as to endanger the passenger's safety. Betts v. Wilmington City R. Co., 19 Del. 448, 53 A 358. [d] The presence of the street flagman and the train dispatcher on the car at the time of the accident is immaterial, where these persons have no duties with reference to the discharge of passengers or they do not see the passenger in time to save him. Smith v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 147 Ala. 702, 41 S 307. 98. Nilson v. Oakland Tract. Co., 10 Cal. A. 103, 101 P 413; Crotzer v. Freeport R., etc., Co., 150 Ill. A. 470; Chalmers v. United R. Co., (Mo. A.) 131 SW 903; Peck v. Springfield Tract. Co., 131 Mo. A. 134, 110 SW 659; Clinton v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 91 App. Div. 374, 86 NYS 932; Sims v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 65 App. Div. 270, 72 NYS 835; Bachrach v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 35 App. Div. 633, 54 NYS 958; Gomez v. New York City R. Co., 105 NYS 108. car [a] Thus where a street which had almost stopped at a sig nal to the motorman by plaintiff who intended to take passage suddenly started forward without warning while plaintiff was getting aboard, the company negligent, though the conductor did not know of plaintiff's position, it being his duty to inform himself thereof. Nilson v. Oakland Tract. Co., 10 Cal. A. 103, 101 P 413. was even [b] A motorman is not negligent in increasing the speed of the car as a passenger is alighting, where he has not been given a signal by anyone warning him that a stop is desired; but the street car company is nevertheless liable for an accident caused thereby, if the conductor is negligent in failing to see that a passenger is about to alight, particularly where the passenger has told the conductor that he wants to alight at that point and he is the only passenger on the car. Moeller v. United R. Co., 242 Mo. 721, 147 SW 1009. 99. Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Girod, 164 Ala. 10, 51 S 242, 137 Am SR 17; Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 459. 78 SW 838; Bachrach v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 35 App. Div. 633, 54 NYS 958; Nathan v. New York City R. Co., 91 NYS 35. [a] Mistake of passenger.-Where a street car slows down at the usual point for receiving passengers, SO that a person has reason to believe it is for that purpose on this occasion, the company is liable for the consequences of any mistake on his part in so believing, if he is not guilty of contributory negligence. Maguire v. St. Louis Transit Co., 103 Mo. A. 459, 78 SW 838. 1. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Dice, 113 Ill. A. 74. St. R. Ind.-Dresslar v. Citizens' Co., 19 Ind. A. 383, 47 NE 651. Mich. Schultz v. Michigan United R. Co., 158 Mich. 665, 123 NW 594, 27 LRANS 503. Mo.-Speaks v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 179 Mo. A. 311, 166 SW 864. N. Y.-Freemont v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 83 App. Div. 414. 82 NYS 307; Sims v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 65 App. Div. 270, 72 NYS 835; Steuer v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 46 App. Div. 500, 61 NYS 1059; Armstrong v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 36 App. Div. 525, 55 NYS 498 [aff 165 N. Y. 641 mem, 59 NE 1118 mem]; Maisels v. Dry-Dock, etc., R. Co., 16 App. Div. 391, 45 NYS 4. Tex.-Gildemeister v. San Antonio Tract. Co., 135 SW 1097. Wash.-Blakney v. Seattle Electric Co., 28 Wash. 607, 68 P 1037. [a] A carrier is not bound to take notice that a passenger on an electric car will leave her seat and move to the door as the car slackens its speed and approaches the place where she has announced that she wished to alight, so that acceleration of the speed of the car while, unknown to any employee of defendant, she is in such position is not negligence, where it would not have been negligence had she not assumed such position. Schultz v. Michigan United R. Co., 158 Mich. 665, 123 NW 594. 27 LRANS 503. car car [b] Boarding without signaling. Where a person, without giving any signal, attempts to board a street car at a place where it slows down for a switch but does ployees owe him. no duty as a pasnot stop, the company's emsenger. Gildemeister v. San Antonio Tract. Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 135 SW 1097. [c] Where a passenger gives notice of his intention to alight too late for the car to stop at a crossing. as required by a rule of the carrier, the carrier is not negligent, although it slows down in an unsuccessful attempt so to do, and such passenger is afterward injured, by the car gradually increasing its speed while he is attempting to alight between crossings. Dresslar v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 19 Ind. A. 383, 47 NE 651. [d] Although a car has been signaled to stop by a bystander, (1) and the car has been slowed down, it is not negligence to increase the speed of the car before the rear of the car is opposite the place where the intending passenger is standing, unless the motorman sees him attempting to get on the car (Monroe v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Div. 587, 80 NYS 177), (2) or unless the car is slowed down in response to his signal, or the employees in charge of the car become aware that he desires or is attempting to board the car (Reidy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co.. 27 Misc. 527, 58 NYS 326). (3) Where a car is required to be kept under control as it approaches bound to ascertain whether any person might be alighting while the car is in motion.2 [1369] g. Duty to See That All Passengers Have Reached Place of Safety. Where a car has stopped for the purpose of letting one or more passengers on or off, even though it has stopped for a reasonable length of time, and although it is not a regular stopping place, it is the duty of the employees in charge of the car to see, before starting it, that there is no passenger in the act of boarding or alighting, and that all passengers attempting to get on or off have reached a place of safety, and this rule has been held to apply even where the car has been stopped for some other pur R. Co., 95 Mo. A. 303, 68 SW 1063. a crossing, the fact that it slows | SW 1119; Maxey v. Metropolitan St. 2. Ashtabula Rapid Transit Co. v. Holmes, 67 Oh. St. 153, 65 NE 877. 3. U. S.-Dudley V. Front St. Cable R. Co., 73 Fed. 128; Cohen v. West Chicago St. R. Co., 60 Fed. 698, 9 CCA 223. Ala.-Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Mayo, 181 Ala. 525, 61 S 289; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Jung, 161 Ala. 461, 49 S 434, 18 AnnCas 557; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Lee, 153 Ala. 79, 45 S 292; Birmingham R., etc., Co. v. Wildman, 119 Ala. 547, 24 S 548; Highland Ave., etc.. R. Co. v. Burt, 92 Ala. 291, 9 S 410, 13 LRA 95 and note; Birmingham Union R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 60, 8 S 86, 24 AmSR 761. Ark. Little Rock Tract., etc., Co. v. Kimbro, 75 Ark. 211, 87 SW 121, 644. Colo.-Montgomery V. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 50 Colo. 210, 114 P 659; Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co. v. Marr, 26 Colo. A. 48, 141 P 142. Conn.-White v. Connecticut Co., 88 Conn. 614, 92 A 411, LRA1915C 609; Post v. Hartford St. R. Co., 72 Conn. 362, 44 A 547. D. C. Guenther v. Metropolitan R. Co., 23 App. 493; Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 11 App. 107; Metropolitan R. Co. v. Jones, 1 App. 200. Ga.-Atlanta R. Co. v. Randall, 117 Ga. 165, 43 SE 412. Ill.-Chicago West Div. R. Co. v. Mills, 105 Ill. 63; Chicago City R. Co. v. Mumford, 97 Ill. 560; Joliet St. R. Co. v. Duggan, 45 Ill. A. 450. 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; Campbell v. Maryland Casualty Co., 52 Ind. A. 228, 97 NE 1026; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Beals, 50 Ind. A. 450, 98 NE 453; Crump v. Davis, 33 Ind. A. 88, 70 NE 886; Anderson v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 12 Ind. A. 194, 38 NE 1109. Kan.-Leavenworth Electric R. Co. v. Cusick, 60 Kan. 590, 57 P 519, 72 AmSR 374. Ky.- Louisville R. Co. v. Pulliam, 101 SW 295, 30 KyL 1325; Louisville R. Co. v. Rammaker, 51 SW 175, 21 KyL 250. La.-Bommarius V. New Orleans R., etc.. Co., 123 La. 615, 49 S 213; Conway v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1429, 16 S 362; Wardle v. New Orleans City R. Co., 35 La. Ann. 202. Mass.-James V. Boston El. R. Co., 213 Mass. 424, 100 NE 545; Vine V. Berkshire St. R. Co., 212 Mass. 580, 99 NE 473; Rand v. Boston El. R. Co., 198 Mass. 569, 84 NE 841; Davey v. Greenfield, etc., St. R. Co., 177 Mass. 106, 58 NE 172. Mich.-Keeley v. City Electric R. Co., 168 Mich. 79, 133 NW 1085; Finn v. Valley City St., etc., R. Co., 86 Mich. 74, 48 NW 696. Mo.-Paul v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (A.) 179 SW 787; Jerome v. United R. Co., 155 Mo. A. 202, 134 SW 107; Parker v. United R. Co., 154 Mo. A. 126, 133 SW 137; Alten v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 133 Mo. A. 425, 113 SW 691; Bell v. Central Electric R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 660, 103 SW 144; Miller v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 414, 102 SW 592; Hurley v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 120 Mo. A. 262, 96 SW 714; Nelson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 113 Mo. A. 702, 88 N. Y.-Poulin v. Broadway, etc., R. Co., 61 N. Y. 621; Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370; Foden v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 136 App. Div. 765, 121 NYS 420; Brown v. Manhattan R. Co., 82 App. Div. 222, 81 NYS 755; Bessenger v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 79 App. Div. 32, 79 NYS 1017; Sexton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 App. Div. 26, 57 NYS 577; Munroe v. Third Ave. R. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. 114; Lang v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 76 Misc. 195, 134 NYS 627; Pieffer v. Buffalo R. Co., 4 Misc. 465, 24 NYS 490 [aff 144 N. Y. 636 mem, 39 NE 494 mem]. N. C.-Snipes v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 141 N. C. 18, 56 SE 477. Or. Tompkins V. Portland etc., Co., 77 Or. 174, 150 P 758. R., Pa.-McCurdy V. United Tract. Co., 15 Pa. Super. 29; Bensing__v. People's Electric St. R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. 142. But see Pitcher v. People's St. R. Co., 174 Pa. 402, 34 A 567; Pitcher v. People's St. R. Co., 154 Pa. 560, 26 A 559 (both holding that, where plaintiff, without indicating his intention to the conductor or driver, attempted to board a street car at the front platform while it was standing to let off a passenger, and the conductor was standing on the ground at the rear facing the front, and could have seen plaintiff, and he knew plaintiff well and knew that he usually took that car, and the driver also knew plaintiff, but was not looking to see if anyone was to get on, and by starting up his horses threw plaintiff to the ground and injured him, a nonsuit was warranted). Va.-Fanshaw V. Norfolk, etc.. Tract. Co.. 108 Va. 300, 61 SE 790. Wash.-Welsh V. Spokane, etc., R. Co., 91 Wash. 260, 157 P 679. "The stopping of a street-car at the place where passengers are usually received constitutes an invitation to the public to board the car and become passengers. This invitation continues while the car is standing. The starting of the car is a withdrawal of the invitation. While the latter continues it is the duty of those in charge of the car to use at least reasonable care to see that any one who attempts to board the car and who puts himself in a position to be readily seen by the person in charge thereof is not injured while boarding the same. During the time the invitation is so extended those in charge of the car are compelled to keep a lookout for persons who may seek to take passage thereon.' Tompkins v. Portland R., etc., Co., 77 Or. 174, 179, 150 P 758. [a] Interurban electric cars.-The rule stated in the text applies to the management of an electric car which is run on schedule time, and which, when beyond the city limits, stops only at regular stations. Birmingham R., etc.. Co. v. Wildman, 119 Ala. 547, 24 S 548. [b] Conductor's duty to know (1) The law imposes on a conductor the duty of knowing whether or or not a passenger has alighted, and the further duty not to cause the car to be started until that operation has been accomplished. Chicago City R. Co. v. Crauf, 136 Ill. A. 66 [aff 235 I11, 262, 85 NE 235]; Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Beals, 50 Ind. A. 450, 98 NE 453; Bommarius v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 123 La. 615, 49 S 213 (holding that a con ductor of an electric car, before giving the signal for his car to resume its course after one or more passengers have alighted, must look into the car to see if other passengers are in the act of alighting); Paul v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Mo. A.) 179 SW 787. (2) The conductor is required to know, if by the exercise of due care he could know, whether any person is attempting to get on his car before permitting the same to start. Neely V. Louisville, etc.. Tract. Co., 53 Ind. A. 659, 102 NE 455; Snipes v. Norfolk, etc., R. Co., 144 N. C. 18, 56 SE 477 (holding that it is the duty of a street car conductor to know when he starts his car that no person attempting to board is at that moment with one foot on the platform and the other on the ground, with his hand on the railing or otherwise in a position of danger). [c] Duty not absolute.-(1) The law requires the highest care consistent with the mode of conveyance and the transaction of the business from employees of street railroads to see that no passenger is alighting before starting the car, but employees are not subject to any absolute duty to know that no passenger is alighting. Terre Haute, etc., Tract. Co. v. York, (Ind. A.) 110 NE 999; Campbell v. Maryland Casualty Co., 52 Ind. A. 228, 97 NE 1026. (2) Although a street car conductor must exercise reasonable care to see that a passenger is off the car before starting it, he is not bound to see that the passenger has alighted, being required only to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the proper transaction of the company's business. Millmore V. Boston El. R. Co., 194 Mass. 323, 80 NE 445, 120 AmSR 558, 11 LRANS 140 and note. [d] It is not sufficient that the car is operated in the usual manner. Crump v. Davis, 33 Ind. A. 88, 70 NE 886. [e] Stopping for reasonable time not sufficient. A street car conductor has no right to assume, because the car has been stopped for a time reasonably sufficient to enable passengers to alight, that they have alighted, but is charged with the duty to see that no one is in the act of alighting when the car starts. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Beals, 50 Ind. A. 450, 98 NE 453; Paul v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., (Mo. A.) 179 SW 787; Miller v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 414, 102 SW 592; Murphy v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 125 Mo. A. 269. 102 SW 64. [f] Both ends of the car should be watched, in order to see that all passengers are safely on. Guenther v. Metropolitan R. Co., 23 App. (D. C.) 493. [g] It is the duty of the driver of a horse car, when signaled to stop, at least to ascertain who and how many of his passengers intend to alight at that place, to wait a sufficient length of time to enable them to alight in safety by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and in any event to see and know that no passenger is in the act of alighting or is otherwise in a position which would be rendered perilous by the motion of the car when he again puts the car in motion. Birmingham Union R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 60, 8 S 86, 24 AmSR 761. [h] Duty of conductor of dummy engine.-"Where dummy engines are used for the transportation of passengers, and conductors are in the control of the cars, and there are no regular stopping places or stations for receiving and putting Crowded car. This rule applies, although the car is crowded, making it difficult to see from within the car whether passengers are boarding or alighting, and in such a case the conductor is not justified in relying on information given him by one standing on the rear platform of the car. But, if this duty may be performed equally as well from off passengers, and the conductors are not informed in advance where the passengers desire to alight and cannot know how many are expected to alight, when the motion or signal is given to stop, and the rules and conditions for governing such en. gines and cars for carrying passengers are not such as to invoke the principles which prevail in ordinary railways, the presumption does not arise that the duty of the conductor is performed, by merely stopping a reasonable length of time, sufficient to enable passengers to get on or off; but in such cases. the same measure of duty is required as that imposed upon the driver of a horse car, that is, he shall inform himself by looking and seeing how many passengers desire and intend to alight, and, in any event, to see and know that no passenger is in the act of alighting, or in a position which would be rendered perilous by putting the car in motion. If, after stopping and waiting a reasonable time for passengers to get off, the conductor places himself in a posttion where he can see and know, and there are no indications that others or any desire or intend to alight or get on, the conductor may then cause the car to move and if passengers, after this, attempt to get on or off, without further notice to the conductor, and he has no actual knowledge of their intention and position, they do so at their peril, and not at the peril of the carrier." Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. Burt, 92 Ala. 291, 95, 9 S 410, 13 LRA 95. To same effect Sweet v. Birmingham R., etc., Co., 136 Ala. 166, 33 S 886. car inside the car as at any other point, the conductor need not be on the platform at the time.10 [§ 1370] 15. Elevator Cases.11 11 It is the duty of a carrier by elevator to allow a reasonable time for passengers, in the exercise of ordinary care, to enter its car with safety,12 and, where the person in charge of an elevator starts it suddenly, before a person who has entered it has had an opportunity to obtain his balance and stability, it is negligence rendering the operator of the elevator liable to a passenger for injuries thereby sustained;13 and it is particularly necessary that a child passenger shall be granted this opportunity, as in his case there is greater danger of serious consequences from the sudden and rapid motion of the car.14 An elevator must also be held a reasonable time for pas it is negligence to start up a car [b] Stopping car on wrong side 5. Wheeler v. Boston El. R. Co., 220 Mass. 298, 107 NE 938. 6. Colo.-Montgomery v. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 50 Colo. 210, 114 P 659. Ill. Lyman v. Chicago City R. Co., Ind. Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Shep- St. [a] Garment caught on car.—(1) vent passengers from getting off on that side, if the conductor negligently left the gate open, he was bound to exercise ordinary care to observe both sides of the car to protect passengers in alighting. Central Kentucky Tract. Co. v. Chapman, (Ky.) 124 SW 830. 8. Guenther V. Metropolitan R. Co., 23 App. (D. C.) 493; Hamilton v. Kankakee Electric R. Co., 158 Ill. A. 422. [a] A conductor has no right to assume that all are equally strong and active, and that the last one must be safely on, because in his opinion sufficient time has been given; and the fact that the car is so crowded as to make it difficult or impossible for him to make the necessary observation while within the car is not only no excuse, but would seem to increase the burden of his duty, because of the consequént impediment to rapid egress and ingress. Guenther v. Metropolitan R. Co., 23 App. (D. C.) 493. But see Keeley v. City Electric R. Co., 168 Mich. 79, 133 NW 1085 (holding that, when a street car has stopped for such a time that one able to alight or enter with reasonable speed could have done so, the conductor may rely on the assumption that the purpose of stopping the car is accomplished, in the absence of contrary knowledge). 9. Grant v. New Orleans R., etc., Co., 129 La. 811, 56 S 897; McCurdy v. United Tract. Co., 15 Pa. Super. 29. etc., 10. Fanshaw V. Norfolk, Tract. Co., 108 Va. 300, 61 SE 790. 11. Care required and liability of carrier by elevator generally see supra § 1307. Becker v. Lincoln Real Est., etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246, 73 SW 581. 13. U. S.-Mitchell v. Marker, 62 Fed. 139, 10 CCA 306, 25 LRA 33 and note. Ga.-Grant v. Allen, 141 Ga. 106, 80 SE 279. Morris Bldg., etc., Impr. Assoc., 104 La. 426, 29 S 46. Mo.-Hensler v. Stix, 113 Mo. A. 162. 88 SW 108. Office 12. [i] It is the duty of a brakeman employed on an elevated railroad to know whether passengers are attempting to leave a when he closes the gate thereof, and to act accordingly. McGarry V. Boston El. R. Co., 195 Mass. 538. 81 NE 194. from [j] Danger overhang of car.--Since La.-Russo v. alighting a passenger from a car after it has stopped at a regular stopping place is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to get beyond danger from its movement and operation, carrier is guilty of actionable negligence, knowing the danger, in not adopting some precaution to avoid injury to passengers alighting at that point from the overhang of the car as it rounds a curve of the track at the stopping place. White v. Connecticut Co., 88 Conn. 614, 92 A 411, LRA1915C 609 and note. a V. 4. West Chicago St. R. Co. Manning, 170 I. 417, 48 NE 958; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Luka, 72 Ill. A. 60; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Cook, 43 Ill. A. 634 [aff 145 Ill. 551, 33 NE 958]; Patterson v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 90 Iowa 247, 57 NW 880; Jackson v. Grand Ave. R. Co., 118 Mo. 199. 24 SW 192. [a] Where it is the common practice of a street car company to allow passengers to get on and off its cars at other places than street corners, [b] The fact that the conductor is busy with other matters within the car does not excuse his failure to know before giving the signal to start that no one is in the act of getting on or off. Hurley v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 120 Mo. A. 262, 96 SW 714. 7. Central Kentucky Tract. Co. v. Chapman, (Ky.) 124 SW 830; Cramer v. Springfield Tract. Co., 112 Mo. A. 350, 87 SW 24. [a] Gate negligently left openWhere the gate on the left-hand side of a street car should have been closed at the point at which a passenger got off on that side, to pre N. Y.-McGrell v. Buffalo Bldg. Co.. 90 Hun 30, 35 NYS 599 [rev 153 N. Y. 265, 47 NE 305]. R. I.-Blackwell v. O'Gorman Co., 22 R. I. 638, 49 A 28. Wash.-Davis v. Burke, 90 Wash. 495, 156 P 525. [a] It is negligence to start an elevator while the door is still open and the passenger is entering. Blackwell v. O'Gorman Co.. 22 R. I. 638. 49 A 28. [b] Invitation to enter or leave.— The stopping of an office building elevator at a point where its floor and that of the building are practically on a level, with the door of the elevator shaft open, is an implied invitation to passengers to enter or leave the same. Grant V. Allen, 141 Ga. 106, 80 SE 279. 14. McGrell v. Buffalo Office Bldg. Co., 90 Hun 30, 35 NYS 599 [rev 153 N. Y. 265, 47 NE 305]. sengers to alight;15 and it has been held that, where the car stops to permit a passenger to alight, the operator must before starting use reasonable care to ascertain if others are about to leave the car, and that it is not necessary that every passenger who wishes to leave at that place should repeat the direction to the operator to stop there.16 [§ 1371] H. Care Required and Liability as to Machinery, Tracks, and Appliances-1. Sufficiency and Maintenance in General. The rule requiring a carrier to exercise the highest degree of practicable care and skill in performance of the transportation18 is applicable in its full extent with reference to the sufficiency and maintenance of the roadbed, bridges, tracks, machinery, and other running appliances of a railroad or street railroad company engaged in the transportation of passengers,19 the degree of care required depending largely on the probable seriousness of accidents that may result from defects.20 If injuries result to a passenger from defects which could have been avoided by the 15. Chicago Exch. Bldg. Co. v. Nelson, 197 Ill. 334, 64 NE 369 [aff 98 II. A. 189]; Luckel v. Century Bldg. Co., 177 Mo. 608, 76 SW 1035; Becker v. Lincoln Real Est., etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246, 73 SW 581; Becker v. Lincoln Real Est., etc., Co., 118 Mo. A. 74, 93 SW 291; Mitchell v. Keene, 87 Hun 266, 33 NYS 1045. 16. Luckel v. Century Bldg. Co., 177 Mo. 608, 76 SW 1035; Becker v. Lincoln Real Est., etc., Co., 174 Mo. 246, 73 SW 581. 17. Management and operation of appliances on trains see infra § 1381. 18. See supra §§ 1295-1306. 19. U. S.-Irvine V. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 184 Fed. 664, 106 CCA 600; Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755; Anthony v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 27 Fed. 724 [aff 132 U. S. 172, 10 SCt 53, 33 L. ed. 301]. Ark.-Arkansas Cent. R. Co. v. Janson, 90 Ark. 494, 119 SW 648; Eureka Springs R. Co. v. Timmons, 51 Ark. 459, 11 SW 690; George v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 34 Ark. 613. Ind.-Louisville, etc.. R. Co. V. Thompson, 107 Ind. 442, 8 NE 18, 9 NE 357, 57 AmR 120. Iowa. La Barge v. Union Electric Co., 138 Iowa 691, 116 NW 816, 19 LRANS 213. La.-Jackson v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 114 La. 981, 38 S 701. 108 AmSR 366, 10 LRA 294. Me-Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 A 943, 20 LRA 812. Mass.-McElroy v. Nashua, etc., R. Corp., 4 Cush. 400, 50 AmD 794. Mich.-Howell V. Lansing City Electric R. Co., 136 Mich. 432, 99 NW 406. Mo.-Craig v. St. Louis United R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 616, 158 SW 390. N. Y.-Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 NE 383, 3 LRA 74; Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196, 82 Am D 282; Curtis v. Rochester. etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 75 AmD 258; Costikyan v. Rome, etc., R. Co., 58 Hun 590, 12 NYS 683 [aff 128 N. Y. 633 mem, 29 NE 147 mem]. Tex.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. Parks, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 480, 90 SW 343. V. V. Va.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. Noell, 32 Gratt. (73 Va.) 394; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. (70 Va.) 431. W. Va.-Mannon v. Camden Interstate R. Co., 56 W. Va. 554, 49 SE 450; Searle v. Kanawha, etc., R. Co., 32 W. Va. 370, 9 SE 248. [a] Provisions required vary with circumstances.-All carriers are not required to adopt a like expensive provision for the safety of passengers. The provisions required to be adopted by carriers of passengers for the safety of their passengers vary as the exigencies of the traffic and its remunerative character demand and justify. A railroad constructed through a thinly settled country, exercise of the highest care and diligence on the part of the persons employed in the construction and maintenance of the carrier's road and the manufacture and repair of its rolling stock and machinery, the carrier is liable.21 However, the carrier is not liable for an accident where it exercises such care, prudence, and foresight as is required under the circumstances.22 [§ 1372] 2. Inspection. The care required as to roadbed, track, machinery, and appliances is not fully exercised by an originally safe construction, but involves such constant inspection for the purpose of discovering defects or dangers which may be developed in the operation of the road, and in remedying the same, as the highest degree of care and foresight would suggest, so far as practicable, consistently with the carrying on of the carrier's business, and a neglect of this duty renders the carrier liable to passengers who may be injured by reason of any defect which might have been discovered by such inspection.23 This inspection with moving but little freight and few passengers, and running its trains at a slow rate of speed, cannot be expected to be equipped and operated in the same manner as is necessary in the case of a railroad running through a densely populated territory and moving a large volume of traffic. Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Canman, 52 Ark. 517, 13 SW 280. [b] In the construction of the roadbed and track the company is not bound absolutely to provide against extraordinary and unprecedented storms, floods, or other inevitable casualties caused by the hidden forces of nature, unknown to common experience, and which cannot be reasonably anticipated by that degree of engineering skill and experience required in the prudent construction of a railroad. Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 A 943. 20 LRA 812. See generally supra § 1335. 20. Taylor v. Pennsylvania Co., 50 Fed. 755; Kelly v. Manhattan R. Co., 112 N. Y. 443, 20 NE 383, 3 LRA 74; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Parks, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 480, 90 SW 343. re [a] The degree of care (1) quired in keeping the company's appliances in reasonably good repair is that high degree of care which would be exercised by very cautious, competent, and prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. V. Parks, 40 Tex. Civ. A. 480. 90 SW 343. (2) It is the duty of a carrier to exercise that high degree of care which a very competent and prudent person would exercise in furnishing reasonably safe appliances and attachments necessary for the accommodation of its passengers, and it is also incumbent on it to use the same care to see that such appliances and attachments are kept in a reasonably safe condition. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Swancey, (Tex. Civ. A.) 128 SW 677. V. Whittier, 21. Cal. Treadwell 80 Cal. 574, 22 P 266, 13 AmSR 175, 5 LRA 498. Iowa.-Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 Iowa 515. Ky-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Brown, 12 KyL 468. Mass.-Weil v. Boston El. R. Co., 218 Mass. 397, 105 NE 983; Gilmore v. Milford, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 44, 78 NE 744. Minn, Bishop v. St. Paul City R. Co.. 48 Minn. 26, 50 NW 927. Mo.-Donovan v. Kansas City El. R. Co., 157 Mo. A. 649, 138 SW 679. N. Y.-Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 404; Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 AmD 517 and note: Weber v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 22 App. Div. 628, 47 NYS 812. Pa.-Willis v. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 189 Pa. 430, 42 A 1; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. 351, 39 AmR 787. S. C.-Caveny v. Neely, 43 S. C. 70, 20 SE 806. Pac. Utah.-Nelson V. Southern Co., 18 Utah 244, 55 P 364. Va.-Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. (56 Va.) 230; Farish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. (52 Va.) 697, 62 AmD 666. Eng. Francis v. Cockrell, L. R. 5 Q. B. 184; Grote v. Chester, etc., R. Co., 2 Exch. 251, 154 Reprint 485; Pym v. Great Northern R. Co.. 2 F. & F. 619; Burns v. Cork, etc., R. Co., 13 Ir. C. L. 543. Ont.-Gaiser v. Niagara, St. Catharines, etc., R. Co., 19 Ont. L. 31. 14 OntWR 42; Hay v. Great Western R. Co., 37 U. C. Q. B. 456. [a] Independent contractor.-The exercise of this care on the part of the carrier itself cannot be avoided by turning over the construction or maintenance of roadbed or track to an independent contractor. Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. (56 Va.) 230. See generally supra § 1313. [b] Where snowsheds are constructed over a railroad track, but not high enough to enable a person to walk over the highest cars of a freight train with safety, and a person in charge of stock, properly passing along the top of the train, is injured by a collision with such snowsheds, he may recover. Nelson v. Southern Pac. Co., 18 Utah 244, 55 P 364; Saunders V. Southern Pac. Co.. 13 Utah 275, 44 P 932. 22. Ark. Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Canman, 52 Ark. 517, 13 SW 280. Colo.-Kansas Pac, R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442; Posten v. Denver Cons. Tramway Co., 11 Colo. A. 187, 53 P 391. D. C.-Harbison v. Metropolitan R. Co., 9 App. 60. Ill-Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Koenigsam, 13 Ill. A. 505. N. Y.-Leyh v. Newburgh Electric R. Co., 41 App. Div. 218, 58 NYS 479 [aff 168 N. Y. 667 mem, 61 NE 1131 mem]: Nelson v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 25 App. Div. 535, 50 NYS 63; Atwood v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 25 Misc. 758, 54 NYS 138. 23. Ark.-St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Leflar. 104 Ark. 528, 149 SW 530; Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Griffith, 63 Ark. 491, 39 SW 550; St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 57 Ark. 418, 21 SW 883. Conn.-De Cecco V. Connecticut Co., 85 Conn. 707, 83 A 215. V. Ind. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. Newell. 104 Ind. 264, 3 NE 836; Indiana Union Tract. Co. v. Scribner, 47 Ind. A. 621, 93 NE 1014. Ky.-Davis v. Paducah R., etc., Co., respect to both its mode24 and frequency25 must be such as can be done consistently with the conduct of the carrier's business. The frequency of inspection is dependent on the liability to impairment, the consequences of which may be apprehended as a result of defective conditions;20 but the carrier is not required to keep up a continuous inspection, or to know at each moment the condition of every part of a train.27 Under circumstances involving peculiar peril, such as a freshet, endangering the safety of the track, the carrier should inspect its tracks with more than ordinary promptitude to discover whether danger has developed;28 and it has been held that inspec 113 Ky. 267, 68 SW 140, 24 KyL 135. La. Lowenthal v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 117 La. 1007, 42 S 483; Jackson v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 114 La. 981, 38 S 701, 108 AmSR 366, 70 LRA 294; Frelsen v. Southern Pac. Co., 42 La. Ann. 673, 7 S 800. Me.-Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 A 943, 20 LRA 812. Mass.-Weil v. Boston El. R. Co., 218 Mass. 397, 105 NE 983. Mich.-Gerlach V. Detroit United R. Co., 171 Mich. 474, 137 NW 256; Rouston v. Detroit United R. Co., 151 Mich. 237, 115 NW 62; Robinson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 135 Mich. 254, 97 NW 689. Minn.-Goodsell v. Taylor, 41 Minn. 207, 42 NW 873, 16 AmSR 700, 4 LRA 673. Mo.-Sharp v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 114 Mo. 94, 20 SW 93; Furnish v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 102 Mo. 438, 13 SW 1044, 22 AmSR 781. N. J. Bleiwise v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 160, 78 A 1058; Proud v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 702, 46 A 710, 50 LRA 468. N. Y.-Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 133 N. Y. 575 mem, 30 NE 721; Palmer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 24 NE 302. 17 AmSR 629; Poulsen v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 30 App. Div. 246, 51 NYS 933; Hanley v. Harlem R. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 359. Oh.-Cleveland, etc., Tract. Co. v. Ward, 27 Oh. Cir. Ct. 761. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66 Tex. 92, 17 SW 406; International, etc., R. Co. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 AmR 744; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Moore, (Civ. A.) 161 SW 378; Texas. etc., R. Co. v. Leakey, 39 Tex. Civ. A. 584, 87 SW 1168; Houston, etc., R. Co. Norris, (Civ. A.) 41 SW 708. V. Wis.-Burt v. Douglas County St. R. Co., 83 Wis. 229, 53 NW 447, 18 LRA 479. Eng.-Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., 1 C. P. D. 342. Can.-Toronto R. Co. v. Fleming, 47 Can. S. C. 612, 12 DomLR 249, 49 CanLJ 386 [app dism 27 Cent. L. 332, 8 DomLR 507, 4 OntWN 323, 23 OntWR 385]. Ont.-Gaiser v. Niagara St. Catharines, etc., R. Co., 19 Ont. L. 31, 14 Ont WR 42. [a] Electric cars.-Where a passenger is injured by the metal portions of an electric car becoming charged with a current, which fact might have readily been ascertained by inspection, the carrier is liable for an injury to a passenger therefrom. Burt v. Douglas County St. R. Co., 83 Wis. 229, 53 NW 447, 18 LRA 479. Co., 151 Mich. 237, [cit Cyc]. tion should be made both during and after extraordinary storms in order to prevent accidents.29 [§ 1373] 3. Latent Defects. The duty of the carrier as to furnishing machinery and appliances originally safe, suitable, and adequate is discharged by a purchase thereof from a competent and reputable manufacturer and an inspection to detect defects discoverable by any tests which the highest degree of care and prudence can suggest, and hence it will not be liable for injuries resulting from hidden defects which could not be discovered and provided against in the exercise of such care and prudence.3 A carrier is not liable for latent defects which could not be discovered by the most careful 30 243, 115 NW 62 [c] Inspection of wheels (1) Where the defect in a wheel could be discovered by a most careful and thorough inspection of the wheel, the carrier is negligent if it fails to make such an inspection. Cleveland, etc., Tract. Co. V. Ward, 27 Oh. Cir. Ct. 761. (2) Where a carrier in making an inspection of a car wheel does not exercise due care, and thereby fails to discover a defect therein, which defect afterward causes a wreck, the carrier is liable, although previous to such insufficient inspection it had made proper tests of the wheel in question and failed to discover the defect. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Summers, (Tex. Civ. A.) 49 SW 1106 [aff 92 Tex. 621, 51 SW 324]. 24. Ky.-Davis V. Paducah R., etc., Co., 113 Ky. 267, 68 SW 140, 24 KyL 135. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 A 969. Mich.-Rouston v. Detroit United R. Co., 151 Mich. 237, 115 NW 62. Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66 Tex. 92, 17 SW 406. Eng.-Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., 1 C. P. D. 342 [rev L. R. 10 C. P. 486]. [a] Thoroughness of inspection.(1) The inspection must be as thorough as the dangers incident to the business make necessary. Rouston v. Detroit United R. Co., 151 Mich. 237, 115 NW 62. (2) The duty of a street railroad company to a passenger to protect her from injuries from its appliances is not fulfilled by recent inspection of its cars, or by an inspection by a competent employee, but the law requires of it "the utmost care and skill which prudent men are accustomed to use under similar circumstances." Davis v. Paducah R., etc., Co., 113 Ky. 267, 68 SW 140, 24 KyL 135. [b] Methods of testing machinery. -If any certain satisfactory test of the machinery used by a carrier in transportation is known to it and is within its reach, it should be applied, and it is negligence to rely on any test which is clearly insufficient. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Hamilton, 66 Tex. 92, 17 SW 406. [c] The inspection of car trucks need not be so minute (1) as to defeat the purposes of through traffic. Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., 1 C. P. D. 342 [rev L. R. 10 C. P. 486]. (2) And it is not the duty of a railroad company to make a minute examination of the whole of a truck merely because a defect has been discovered in it. Richardson v. Great Eastern R. Co., supra. 25. Indiana Union Tract. Co. V. Scribner, 47 Ind. A. 621, 93 NE 1014; Palmer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 24 NE 302, 17 AmSR 629 [aff 46 Hun 4861; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Summers, (Tex. Civ. A.) 49 SW 1106 [aff 92 Tex. 621, 51 SW 3241. [a] Inspection at regular places provided for the purpose does not relieve the carrier from the duty to watch and inspect the cars for de fects occurring between stations, so far as they might be anticipated and | discovered. Texas, etc., R. Co. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323. V. 26. Indiana Union Tract. Co. V. Scribner, 47 Ind. A. 621, 93 NE 1014; Palmer v. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 120 N. Y. 170, 24 NE 302, 17 AmSR 629 [aff 46 Hun 486]. 27. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. O'Brien, 163 Ky. 538, 174 SW 31, AnnCas1916E 1084; Craig v. St. Louis United R. Co., 175 Mo. A. 616, 158 SW 390; Proud v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 702, 46 A 710, 50 LRA 468. 28. Libby v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 34, 26 A 943, 20 LRA 812; Cobb v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 149 Mo. 609, 50 SW 894. Liability for accidents caused by freshets see supra § 1335. 29. Hardy v. Carolina Cent. R. Co., 74 N. C. 734, 76 N. C. 5; International, etc., R. Co. v. Halloren, 53 Tex. 46, 37 AmR 744. 30. U. S.-Carter v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 42 Fed. 37; Anthony v. Louisvile, etc., R. Co., 27 Fed. 724 [aff 132 U. S. 172, 10 SCt 53, 33 L. ed. 301]; Robinson v. New York Cent.. etc., R. Co., 9 Fed. 877, 20 Blatchf. 338. Ala.-Western R. Co. v. Walker, 113 Ala. 267, 22 S 182. Cal.-Siemsen V. Oakland, etc.. Electric R. Co., 134 Cal. 494, 66 P 672. Ill-Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Beggs, 85 Ill. 80; St. Louis Coal R. Co. v. Moore, 14 Ill. A. 510. Ind.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 20 NE 284, 10 AmSR 60, 3 LRA 434; Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Boyd, 65 Ind. 526. Ky.-South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. Barr, 147 Ky. 549, 144 SW 755; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Morgan, 129 Ky. 731, 112 SW 859. La.-Jackson v. Natchez, etc., R. Co., 114 La. 981, 989, 38 S 701, 108 AmSR 366, 70 LRA 294 [cit Cyc]. Me.-Stevens v. European, etc., R. Co., 66 Me. 74. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 A 969; Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Nugent, 86 Md. 349, 38 A 779, 39 LRA 161. Mass.-Ingalls v. Bills, 9 Metc. 1, 43 AmD 346 and note. Mich.-Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 31 AmR 321. Mo.-Holland v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. A. 117, 79 SW 508. N. J. Bleiwise v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 160, 78 A 1058. N. Y.-Birmingham V. Rochester City, etc., R. Co., 137 N. Y. 13, 32 NE 995, 18 LRA 764: Curtis V. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 75 AmD 258; Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 13 N. Y. 9, 64 AmD 517 and note: Griffen v. Manice, 36 Misc. 364, 73 NYS 559 [aff 74 App. Div. 371, 77 NYS 626 (aff 174 N. Y. 505 mem, 66 NE 1109 mem)]. But see Alden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 102, 82 AmD 401 [crit and practically overr McPadden v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478, 4 AmR 705]. Pa.-Bradley v. Lake Shore, etc.. Co., 238 Pa. 315, 86 A 200, 44 R. |