Case ID: la-app_7/html/0028-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JONES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9712
    Orleans
    CHESTER v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE INC.
    (June 20, 1927. Opinion and Decree.)
    (July 14, 1927. Rehearing Refused.)
    (October 6, 1927. Writ of Certiorari and Review Denied by Supreme Court.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court).
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Appeal—Par. 625.
    Where only questions of fact are involved, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed unless manifestly erroneous.
    Appeal from Civil District Court. Div. “F”, Hon. Percy Saint, Judge.
    Action by Mrs. Maria Chester, plaintiff arid appellant, against New Orleans Public Service Inc., defendant and appellee.
    There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff appealed.
    Judgment affirmed.
    A. Á. Colongne, of New Orleans, attorney for plaintiff, appellant.
    Dart, Kernan and Dart, of New Orleans, attorneys for defendant, appellee.
   JONES, J.

Plaintiff sued for Ten Thous- and, One Hundred and 00/100 ($10,100.00) Dollars for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained on July 17, 1923, through the negligence of the defendant.

The charges of negligence are:

(1) That while plaintiff was alighting from the car of defendant’s .Carondelet Street line at Broadway and Spruce streets, the conductor closed the folding doors and raised the step, thereby throwing her to the ground.

(2) That the car was started and step raised, while she had one foot on the step.

(3) That the car did not stop at the regular place for discharging passengers.

Defendant denies that it was guilty of the negligence charged and avers that the accident in which plaintiff suffered the injuries alleged was caused, so far as respondent was informed, either by the high heels worn by her or by her awkwardness in stepping from the car-step to the street and in not exercising that care required hy the circumstances then and there existing.

The lower judge rejected plaintiff’s demand and plaintiff has appealed.

Only questions of fact are involved and a careful reading of the entire record fails to show any manifest error in the decision below. It is therefore affirmed.