Cothary

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The defendant’s principal contention is that the court below erred in overruling its motion for an instructed verdict, which was interposed on the ground that the complaint did not state grounds sufficient to constitute a cause of action, that the car was not exceeding any speed limit, nor operated in a careless or negligent manner, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. We think that the question, both of the defendant’s negligence and that of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, were, under the circumstances disclosed, questions for the jury. There was evidence that the car approached at the speed of 30 miles an hour, that the motorman, while ISO feet distant from the place of the accident, distinctly saw the position in which the plaintiff stood and made no effort to stop his car or to give her warning. There was evidence that the plaintiff neither saw nor *874 heard the approaching car, and that she was not lingering or loitering negligently in a place of danger, but was on her way through the turnstile, and that she supposed the obstruction to the turnstile to be but temporary and that in a moment she would be…