Tо compensate an alleged injury, appellant brought this suit against appellee in the Garland Circuit Court and alleged: That on December 29,1932, while a passenger upon one of appellee’s street cars, which was being operated in the city of Hоt Springs for such purposes, she stepped upon a piece of ice or frоzen snow negligently left in the vestibule of said car by appellee which caused her to slip and fall, and thereby she was seriously and permanently injured. In reference to the circumstances under which she was injured, appellant testified:
That on the date named in thе complaint she was a passenger upon one of appellee’s streеt cars which was being operated in the city of Hot Springs for such purposes, and while debarking therefrom she stepped down into the vestibule of said car, and her left foot slipped and “went out from under me like lightning,” and thereby received a very hard fall. She then detаiled the extent of her'injuries, but we deem it unnecessary to here set out this testimony. Dr. Evans testified that he assisted in the removal of Mrs. Turner from the street car on the day she was injured, and that he saw a “number of small pieces of snow and ice, thin in form, like it had been kicked off thе shoe heel or shoe sole,” lying in the vestibule of the street car.
This, in effect, is all the testimony offered by appellant in reference to the receipt of her injuries аnd circumstances under which they were received. In passing, it may be said that the testimony tеnded to show that appellant was seriously and permanently injured by reason of the fall received. The trial court, upon the evidence thus adduced, directed a verdict in favor of appellee, and this appeal is prosecuted seeking reversal.
The trial court was correct in directing a verdict for appellee, because the testimony adduced by appellant was not sufficient to show tliat the injuries reсeived were proximately due to any negligence of appellee. No witness testified that appellant’s fall was proximately due (o the small pieces of snоw and ice afterwards seen in the vestibule of the street car. It is true, the jury might have guessed or speculated that her fall was caused by stepping upon the small pieces of ice and packed snow in the vestibule of the street car, but, on the other hand, it was еqually as probable that her fall was caused by packed snow or ice which had аccumulated on her own shoes. The point is, juries are not permitted to guess or speculate as to the proximate cause of an alleged injury, the burden resting upon аppellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that her injuries were caused by some negligent act or omission of appellee. Covington v. Little Fay Oil Co.,
In the recent case of National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hampton, ante p. 377,
Moreovеr, where it conceded that appellant’s fall and consequent injuries were due рroximately to her slipping- upon the small pieces of ice and snow seen by Doсtor Evans in the vestibule of the street car, this would yet be insufficient to show negligence upon the part of appellee. Before negligence could be inferred, it must have been made to appear from the evidence that appellee permitted this accumulation of ice and snow or that it had been in the vestibule of the car such length of time as to afford an opportunity for removal and a neglect so to do. Riley v. Rhode Island Co., [29 R. I. 143,
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed