
    Hitchcock v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 13,1888.)
    Horse and Street Railroads—Negligence—Defective Appliances—Evidence.
    In an action against a street railroad company for injuries received in alighting-from a car, a verdict for plaintiff cannot be sustained where the only ground alleged in support of it is that there is evidence of a defect in the car step, and plaintiff testifies that he looked at the step, and saw nothing wrong, and numerous witnesses agree that it was not defective.
    
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by Joshua Hitchcock against the Brooklyn City Railroad Company for injuries received in alighting from one of defendant’s cars. The car was in motion at the time, and plaintiff’s allegation was that something projecting upward from the step of the car caught the heel of his boot, causing him to fall. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and JDykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      Morris & Pearsall, for appellant. C. J. Patterson, for respondent.
    
      
       Respecting the liability of horse and street railway companies for negligent injuries. ■ to passengers, and what is negligence on the part of the passenger and of the company,. see Railway Co. v. Robinson, (Ill.) 18 N. E, Rep. 772, and note: Briggs v. Railway Co. (Mass.) 19 N. E. Rep. 19.
    
   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 mu chi 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 of 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 judgment must be reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. All concur.  