Court Opinion

ID: 3586714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:36:29.018147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:08.103233
License: Public Domain

No good reason is shown for the reversal of this judgment. The jury have found, as they had the right to do, that the injury was occasioned in the manner *Page 373 
testified to by the plaintiff. It was clearly a question for them to determine, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the plaintiff was guilty of any negligence in undertaking to leave the car in the manner testified to by himself, and whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in permitting the car to be started while the plaintiff was in the act of leaving it. I think the verdict is right on both points, and justified by the evidence. It was clearly no case for a non-suit. Certainly it cannot, as matter of law, be regarded as negligent in a party to get off, even from the front end of a street car while it is standing, after he has requested the driver to hold his brake for that purpose, and has received his assurance that he will do so. Nor can it be held, as matter of law, that the defendant was free from negligence in allowing the cars to be started after this, while the plaintiff was in the act of getting off. It was a question of fact, and the conclusion of fact was to be drawn from a variety of facts and circumstances, neither of which was, in itself, clear and decisive. This is always the province of a jury. It was for them to consider what was intended and understood both by the plaintiff and the driver by the request and the assent proved, and to determine the weight and force of all the circumstances tending to the conclusion of the fact of negligence.
There is no force in the objection, to the exhibition of the injured limb by the plaintiff, to the surgeon, before the jury.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All the judges concurring, judgment affirmed. *Page 374