
    Joshua Hitchcock, Resp’t, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 10, 1888.)
    Negligence—Street railroad—Defective step—Evidence.
    Where in an action to recover damages against a street railroad company for injuries received while alighting from a moving car, and th& only ground to support a verdict was evidence that there was a defect in the step of the car, but that the plaintiff looked at it before placing his-foot thereon and saw nothing wrong, and numerous witnesses testified (hat the step was not defective: Held, that there was no defect in the step, and. the plaintiff’s injury could not be charged to that cause.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury rendered at the Kings county circuit in favor of the-plaintiff.
    This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while alighting from one-of defendant’s street cars. The car was in motion at the-time. The alleged cause of the injury was a projection upon the step of the car, which caught the heel of the plaintiff’s foot, tripping him up and causing him to fall.
    
      Morris & Pearsall, for app’lt; Charles J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The only ground upon which respondent claims to support the verdict is that there is evidence from which it may be inferred that the step of the car was. in bad order from which cause plaintiff’s injury .arose.

If it be that any such evidence appears, its effect is somewhat shaken by the testimony of plaintiff that he looked at the step before he placed his foot upon it and saw nothing out of the ordinary course. While that does not render it absolutely certain that no defect existed, it cannot be denied that it has much weight. Added to this is the fact, that numerous witnesses on the part of defendant were-examined who were in a position to know the condition off the step, and all of whom agree that it was in perfect, order.

To recapitulate the evidence would not be profitable. It-is enough to say that we cannot resist the conclusion that no defect existed in the step, and that plaintiff’s injury cannot be charged to such a cause. As no other ground is-, suggested to support the verdict, it follows that the judgrnent must be reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.

All concur.  