VAN DE VENTER v. omoaeo crrv RY. co. 33
pany, a corporation organized under the statutes of the state of Illinois,
and a citizen of the state of Illinois, to recover for a personal injury,
claimed to have been received by her through the defendant’s negli-
gence and want of proper care while the plaintiff was attempting to take
one of the defendant’s cars at the corner of Wabash avenue and Jack-
son street, in the city of Chicago, on January 29, 1884. The evidence
shows that the defendant corporation was and is engaged as a com-
mon carrier in the business of carrying persons in Chicago, by means
of street cars known as "cable cars," and propelled and run by steam-
power. The plaintiff was, at the time ofthe accident, a teacher of
instrumental music, prosecuting her vocation in the city of Chicago.
The plaintiff claims that on the day in question she had been en-
gaged in the instruction of her pupils at Webber Music Hall, upon
Wabash avenue, near the corner of Wabash avenue and Jackson
street; that between 4 and 5 o’clock that day, January 29, 1884, she
came down to the street from the hall, where so engaged, and at-
tempted to take the defendant’s car to go southward on Wabash ave-
nue to her home; that the defendantstrain of cars stopped, for the
purpose of taking on passengers, opposite to the entrance to the music
hall, where the plaintiff was standing, waiting for the train, and that
she left the sidewalk, and walked across the street to the rear of the Cot-
’ tags Grove avenue car, which she wished to take, and where other
passengers were about getting on board; that the train remained
standing until all the other passengers got on board; that she, the
plaintiff, was the last one waiting at that point to take that car; and
that after the other passengers had stepped on board the train, and
while it was yet standing still, she took hold of the railing of the car
with one hand, having upon the other arm a gossamer cloak, and an
umbrella in the left hand, and at the same time placed one foot upon
the lower step of the platform to the car, and at that moment, and
before she had got upon the platform, the conductor of the train neg-
ligently caused the train to start without giving her sufficient time to
get upon the car, whereby she was thrown upon the ground, and
drawn several feet along the street by the side of the car, sustaining
injuries to her person. This is substantially the claim which the _
plaintiff makes, and her testimony is directed to and tends to support
the claim.
The defendant’s defense upon the trial is that there was no negli-
gence or misconduct on the part of the railway company, or its con-
ductor of the train, in question; that the plaintiff, if injured at all,
was injured by means of her own carelessness and want of prudence
in attempting to take the car while in motion; and this is, I think,
substantially the issue you are to determine from the evidence.
The defendant is a common carrier of persons, and, as such, is
bound to the exercise of a high degree of care and diligence in its
business, in the cars and protection of the persons and lives -0f its
patrons and passengers. It is bound to exercise that high degree of
, v.26F.no.1—3