Renfro

It is alleged in plaintiff's complaint that while he was a passenger on a certain car operated by defendant corporation at the terminus of the railroad "where said car usually stopped for passengers to alight therefrom, and while said car had slowed up for the purpose of permitting passengers to get off from said car, the employees of said defendant who were then and there running said car and had the same under their charge and control, negligently and carelessly caused said car to be suddenly and violently jerked and started and put in rapid motion without allowing plaintiff sufficient time to alight therefrom; and in consequence of said negligent and careless action of said defendant's *Page 319 employees, and without any fault or negligence on the part of plaintiff, and as further consequence of the negligence and carelessness of defendant's said employees in running and conducting said car, plaintiff was violently thrown from said car to the ground and thereby sustained great injury, to wit," etc. The attending surgeon testified that the injury was "to the right hip joint, the right thigh or femur, the bone near the hip joint, . . . . a fracture just inside the capsule of the…

We endeavored in the opinion to make our position free from ambiguity and uncertainty. Defendant urges that we carried the rule of presumptive negligence further than is warranted by any of the decisions of the supreme court of this state, and that our position is opposed to the rule laid down in well-considered cases in other states. That the point in controversy may clearly appear we quote from the petition: "If the facts testified to up to the point of injury are such only as would not, if the injury did not happen, themselves show any negligence or unusual operation, then the happening of the injury does not raise the presumption of such negligence." Quoting certain passages from the opinion, the petition further states: "The point we make and which we have sufficiently stated is that the other facts must show negligence, but even if the contrary view were correct, the evidence of the nature of plaintiff's fall would be quite insufficient to raise such presumption." Again: "It will be observed again, that the evidence of the fall of the plaintiff is by the court made the controlling consideration in determining negligence." Still further: "In other words, the passenger cannot,…