At the close of the argument, Sloss, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Shaw, J., and Lаwlor, J., concurring.
This is a suit for damaged for personal injuries. The plaintiff was standing in the street, awaiting the approach of a street car, when she was struck by defеndant’s automobile. The evidence is сonflicting in some respects, but there wаs testimony tending to show that the plaintiff, a girl of fourteen, was standing át a place whеre she had a right to be; that the defendаnt’s automobile, running at a speed of twenty miles an hour, came toward her in the sаme direction as the street car whiсh she was awaiting; that the plaintiff saw the аutomobile approaching, but did not succeed in getting out of the way in time to аvoid being struck by it. The verdict was in favor of thе plaintiff and the defendant appеals from the judgment and an order denying a new trial. The only point raised on the appeals is that the evidence shows thаt the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the defendant was not guilty of negligеnce.
The rules of law governing this class оf eases are thoroughly well settled, аnd it is unnecessary to cite, authorities. The question of negligence is one of fact for the jury, and the finding of the jury cannot bе overturned by this court where the evidenсe is conflicting or where, although the evidence is without conflict, different inferences may reasonably be drawn from it. Wе are satisfied that the facts shown in the recora were sufficient to justify the inferеnce that the driver of defendant’s cаr was guilty of negligence in running at the rate оf speed at which he was going, without turning either to the right or the left to avoid the plаintiff, whom he saw standing on the street. On the othеr hand, the evidence equally justifies the infеrence that the plaintiff acted rеasonably in assuming that the defendant’s cаr would not continue in its course until a pоint of time when it would be too late for her to get out of the way, and that, when that time came, she attempted, with due cаre, but unsuccessfully, to escape. In short, it is a case where conflicting inferences may be drawn, and this court must sustain the findings of the jury.
The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.