The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-26
BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY. LIGHT q

blHMlNNff1Am hAAh W A " A<AN~ -
 POWER co. vs. GLOVER.
 Action against Street Railway Company
 by passenger to recover damages
 for personal nturies-Appeal from
 the Circuit Court of Jefferson
 County.
 1. Action by passenger for personal injuries; sufficiency of complaint,-In a suit brought by a passenger against street railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries, a count of the complaint which ayers that "de- fendant was negiisently operatins said car at or near a point on de- fendant's line that while plaintiff was engaged in or about to aIight from said car. his body, as a proximate consequence of said negl' gence, was caused to leave said car and strike the street with great force and violence, whereby plaintiff was bruis' ed," states a cause of action.
 2. Same; same.-In such an action A count of the complaint which ayers that the plaintiff had informed tho defendants servant, the conductor or motorman of said car. of his purpose and desire to alight from said car that 1t was and then became the duty of defendants servant. after slackening and reducing the speed or said car, not to increase the speed oI said car until plaintiff had alighted from said car, or had had reasonable opportunity to alight from said car; that, notwithstanding said duty. the defendants servant negligently. sud denly and greatly increased the speed of said car before plaintiff had alignted therefrom. and before plaintiff had had reasonable opportunity to- aiight therefrom; that as proximate conse- ouence of said negligence" plainun suffered the injuries complained of-is faulty in assuming instead of alleging that defendants servant slackened the speed of the car, upon being informed that the plaintiff desired to alight therefrom. and In not alleging that II was the duty of defendants servant 10 decrease the speed then and there; put said count is not subject to demurrer upon the ground that 1t does not ap- pear therefrom that at the time Of the increase of the sped of the car. the plaintiff was in the act of alighting therefrom, and said complaint states cause of action.
 B. Same; same; when count does not charge willfulness. wantonness or reck- lessness-In such case where a count of the complaint, after stating that plaintiff was a passenger. ana that there was a duty on the part of de- fendant's servant to plaintiff not to in- crease the speed of the car after being advised that plaintiff desired the car stopped that he might allght. then alleges that the said motorman. the defendant well knowing that plaintin was seeking to alight, and well know ing that a sudden jerk would probably throw plaintiff from the car. with wanton and Yillful. or reckless negii- gence, suddenly increased the speed or said car, and as a proximate conse- auence thereof" plaintif was thrown from the car and injured. such count of the complaint does not aver that the motorman wantonlyc willfully or reck- lessIy caused plaintiffs fall. and there- fore pleas of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff set up defense to such count.
 {. Same: same; same.-Such count is inapt, if not affirmatively bad as one alleging willfu injury inflicted by the mortorman, in that 1t ayers not that the mortorman had knowledge of the probable disastrous consequence Of his act but that the defendant" had such knowledge: and the knowledge of the defendant in its corporate capacity. Is not sufficient to characterize the act of the plaintiff on the part of the motor- man as being willful.
 B. Action against street railroad company by passenger; contributory negligence-Where a passenger upon a street car steps off the car back wards while it is going at the rate of i've or six miles an hour. or with his face towards the rear of the car. he Is guilty of contributory negligence. which precludes his recovery for in juries sustained. by reason of trying in this way to allght from the car.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Mcclellan c. J.