Court Opinion

ID: 9654746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:49:19.625968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.099660
License: Public Domain

ELLISON, C. J.
(dissenting). — I dissent. The plaintiff-respondent’s petition alleged she was walking down the streetcar aisle when the “defendant” negligently caused and permitted said streetcar to suddenly check its speed and to receive an extraordinary, unusual jerk, lurch and shock and threw her to the floor and injured her. She testified it did not stop and that when the ear started up all of a sudden it gave a jerk and threw'" her to the floor. Her witness Cobble,- another passenger, testified there wms a jerk; “he” [evidently the motorman] had already started up and then the respondent paid her fare. Just then she fell. The movement was not unusual. It occasionally happens on that streetcar line. There was nothing especially different in the movement of the streetcar on that particular day as compared with other times when she, the witness, was a passenger. Continuing she said “he put on the brakes — anyhow he started slowing down for a cross street because there was a car coming from the left side. He put on his brakes and he didn’t totally stop, and then he went on again rather fast. ’ ’
The principal opinion states the respondent “did not say what caused the jerk, or that the operator caused it,” and that even if it be inferred that the jerk wms due to the application of electric pow'er. to the emergency brakes, the evidence still does not show whether that resulted from a negligent application of the power, or to a negligently maintained transmission system. On that point McCaffery v. St. Louis Public Service Co., No. 42,737, 363 Mo. 545, 252 SW (2d) 361. In that case, somewhat similar in its facts, there was a question as to whether the sudden stopping of a streetcar was caused by improper manipulation of the brakes, or by improper functioning due to faulty maintenance thereof. There is no such evidence in this case. The motorman here applied the brakes and slowed down but did not stop, because an automobile was approaching on a cross street. When it passed he released the brakes and speeded up. In my opinion the instant case counts on specific negligence in the motorman’s operation of the streetcar. It wras not a res ipsa loquitur case.