The judgment is reversed, and in so ruling we assign the following grounds:

This statement we find to be correct, with the exception that respondents both emphasize the fact that the front of the car had passed plaintiff without injuring her, and the further fact that no evidence was adduced by plaintiff from which it could be inferred that the car of either respondent actually struck anyone at the time and place in question. The court below, after denying a motion for nonsuit, later, at the close of the evidence, directed a verdict for respondents. Plaintiff has appealed.

Under this record, we think that the issue of liability rested upon a question of fact and not upon a question of law.

We agree with appellant that the jury would have been warranted in finding either that one or more of the group of persons so standing between the tracks were negligently struck by one or the other or both of the cars of respondents, and that the injury to appellant was the direct consequence of such negligent operation of said car or cars or that the situation was such that it was a negligent act on the part of respondents in attempting to pass a group of people in this narrow space at a rapid rate of speed, which, by reason of the existing situation of the intended passengers, caused jostling and confusion among them, which in turn caused some of the group to be knocked down, in turn causing plaintiff to be struck and to receive as a result thereof the injuries complained of.

In other words, it is our view that it was a question of fact for the jury whether or not these two cars should have simultaneously traversed their respective tracks when a group of ten or twelve persons were crouched together in such a narrow space, there being also ample evidence that the crowd had been placed in this position without fault upon their part, having crossed said municipal tracks for the purpose of boarding a car which the agent of respondent Market Street Company did not allow to stop and having been prevented from retracing their steps to a place of safety by the oncoming of the two other cars.

The position of these tracks is at best a menace to life and limb, and to our mind it was certainly a question of fact whether or not the operating companies used ordinary care under the circumstances. The question of whether the front end of the ear had or had not passed plaintiff is not controlling, nor is it of controlling importance that it cannot be said whether the injury resulted from a car striking some one of the group of persons or whether from fear or confusion. (Lewis v. Young Men’s Christian Assn., ante, p. 115 [ 273 Pac. 580 ].)

The presence or absence of negligence cannot be determined alone by legal precedents. It is determined by the related and relative facts and circumstances and, of course, is usually determined as a fact, for the evidence is rarely in such a condition that a court may safely grant a nonsuit or direct a verdict as a matter of law.

We need not consider the contention that plaintiff in fact became a passenger and was entitled to claim a higher degree of care on the part of the Market Street Company. We hold that upon this record an issue of fact arose which would sustain a verdict for plaintiff upon the ground that ordinary care was absent; hence the conclusion first above announced.

-Curtis, J., Waste, C. J., Shenk, J., Richards, J., .Sea-well, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

All the Justices present concurred.