## Facts

- Letta M. Farnsworth, a 52-year-old widow employed at Sears in Dallas, rode as a fare-paying passenger on Dallas Railway & Terminal Company’s streetcar with her adult daughter and young grandson.
- The streetcar traveled east on Elm Street and stopped at St. Paul Street, where the track turned left (north) onto St. Paul rather than continuing straight.
- A marked “safety zone” existed on the south side of the streetcar for boarding and alighting; the city marked the zone, and the company placed smaller discs nearer the track to indicate the streetcar’s overhang on the curve.
- Farnsworth had substantial experience riding streetcars but had not ridden this line, did not know the car turned at St. Paul, and testified she did not know a streetcar’s rear end swings outward on a curve.
- Farnsworth alighted into the safety zone; as the streetcar began the left turn, the rear overhang swung outward and struck her before she cleared the overhang’s path.
- Farnsworth presented testimony suggesting the operator had been starting the car quickly at earlier stops on the same trip.

## Issues

1. Whether there was any evidence supporting the jury’s findings that the operator was negligent by (a) starting the turning movement before giving Farnsworth a reasonable opportunity to clear the rear overhang and (b) failing to keep a proper lookout.
2. Whether Farnsworth was contributorily negligent as a matter of law by remaining where the rear overhang struck her.
3. Whether evidence of the operator’s hurried starts at earlier stops on the same trip could support an inference about his method of operation at the time of the injury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment for Farnsworth.
- The Court held there was some evidence to support the jury’s findings that the operator negligently started the turn too soon and failed to keep a proper lookout for a passenger alighting into a designated safety zone.
- The Court held Farnsworth was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law; her conduct presented a fact question for the jury given her asserted lack of knowledge about overhang and the presence of the marked safety zone.

## Legal Principles

- A common carrier owes passengers a high degree of care during boarding and alighting, including reasonable precautions when restarting and turning a vehicle near a passenger discharge area.
- A no-evidence challenge fails if testimony permits reasonable jurors to infer negligent timing or operation (e.g., beginning movement before passengers can clear a known danger such as rear overhang on a curve).
- Whether a passenger acted with ordinary care after alighting is generally for the jury, especially when the passenger uses a designated safety zone and lacks knowledge of a specific hazard.
- Evidence of the operator’s conduct at earlier stops on the same trip may be relevant to show a continuing method of operation and support an inference of negligence at the time of the accident.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court upheld a passenger’s recovery after she was struck by a streetcar’s rear overhang while alighting in a marked safety zone, ruling that the record contained some evidence of negligent operation and that contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law.


Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Farnsworth, 227 S.W.2d 1017 (Tex. 1950)