Hildebrant

Plaintiff sued for damages suffered by him while attempting to board a street-car operated by the defendant. The accident occurred about 9:30 P. M. on the 13th of November, 1919. Plaintiff had been a passenger on *Page 591 a Market Street car operated by the defendant coming east through the Twin Peaks tunnel. He obtained a transfer and alighted from said car at Market and Church Streets. He then went to the southwest corner of Market and Church Streets and there waited on the sidewalk for the Church Street or "J" car, which came west on Market Street and turned at that point to go south on Church Street. At that point four street railway tracks were maintained on Market Street, the municipal or "J" line occupying the outer or northerly track. As this car approached the intersection it made a wide curve across Market Street passing over these four tracks, and, as was customarily the case, slowed down to a speed of about three and a half miles an hour. As the "J" car on this occasion crossed Market Street into Church the plaintiff walked out to a white line upon the pavement which he at sometimes described as a safety station but later explained to be merely a line parallel with…

In his petition for a rehearing in the above-entitled cause the respondent complains that we have overlooked material points in the evidence and also that we have disregarded the findings of fact made by the trial court. As to the first point it is urged that our former opinion assumed that the respondent stood on the sidewalk, or curb, as the street-car was rounding the curve and crossing the tracks on Market Street, whereas he states that there is some evidence that he was at that time standing on the safety zone in the street. We made no point in the conflict in the evidence in this respect, but treated the fact as entirely immaterial to the case. The point which we were discussing — the evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant — did not in any way depend upon the position of the respondent at the time the street-car was approaching this zone. It is also suggested that we relied upon the conflict in evidence as to whether this space was a safety zone, as that term is now used, and that we also intimated *Page 594 that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence. Neither of these assertions is correct. In stating the evidence in the record we…