18 Wis. 175 | Wis. | 1864
By the Court,
It appears to us that the third and sixth instructions asked for on the part- of the defendant were proper and should have been given to the jury. The third instruction was as follows : “ If the jury believe from the evidence that the train of cars upon which the plaintiff had taken passage had stopped a sufficient time for the plaintiff to have left them upon the platform where passengers leaving the defendant’s cars usually land, and had again started on their course, and had passed the platform provided by the defendant for passengers to get out of the cars upon, and that the plaintiff then left the platform of the car rather than be carried by, he was guilty of carelessness, and cannot recover in the action.” The sixth instruction embraced essentially the same proposition in a more general form, that if the evidence showed that the train stopped a. sufficient time to allow the plaintiff to. get off, then the defendant was not guilty of negligence in that partic? ular in the management of the train.
The gravamen of the complaint was, that the agents of the company, having, charge of and conducting the. train of cars
We do not discover any error in refusing or giving other instructions, which we deem material.
The judgment of the "circuit court is reversed, and a new trial ordered.