ed at the same time, and twisted my left leg, as I fell over backwards; my leg was drawn between the box and the wheel, my left leg, and ground and crushed it."

We quote part of his cross-examination:

*

"I had gotten in wagons before and knew how to do it. I would have no difficulty in doing it under ordinary circumstances. I have done it quite often. I think I had done it on the afternoon of the day of the accident. * The foreman and one of the helpers got on to the seat of the wagon in front and I was attempting to get into the wagon on the left hand side. I was just stepping over the box, just going to step over the edge of the box into the wagon. I did not put my right leg over the box. I was standing with my left foot on the step. The step was right level with the bottom of the wagon. I stepped up there with my left foot, my right foot I should say. When the head of the other man on the other side of the wagon struck my shoulder, I was standing upright leaning forward a little bit and raising my foot to put it over the box. I got up from the ground and was practically standing on this step 30 inches from the ground. I was entirely clear of the ground and clear of the wheels and as he struck me, I tipped over backwards. Up to that time the team had stood there perfectly still. I don't think it had moved at all. I did not fall clear of the wagon. I hung on the seat with my left hand, as long as I could. There was a front seat. I hung on the back of the front seat with my hand, back of the front seat and fell from there when the wagon caught my left leg. The front wheel caught it. * * * I was very friendly with all these men. There was no trouble, or ill feeling or anything of that kind among us. I haven't any reason to think this man who was attempting to get into the wagon on the other side from me had any ill will or anything. We were good friends and good feeling between us."

Mr. Scanlon was called as a witness on the part of the plaintiff. We quote from his testimony:

"At the time of the accident we were working in Augusta, I think in Calhoun county. On that day we

were repairing the lines. I kept the tools to help the linemen out that way. On the day of the accident Mr. Case, Mr. Munn and Mr. John Bell were working in the crew on this job. It was right after dinner. We had just finished on one job and were just starting up the line a little bit and just four of us started to move. I went to jump on the wagon on the right hand side of the wagon. We both jumped on the steps on the right hand side of the wagon. My head collided with his shoulder and upset him and he fell. I struck him with my head on the shoulder, we both jumped on at the same time. I jumped from the step into the wagon. He was not standing on the wheel but on the steps. There were steps on both sides of the wagon between the rear and front wheels. Neither one of us jumped into the other, but happened to collide when we were getting into the wagon at the same time. I struck him with my head on his shoulder and right arm. He lost his balance and went over the side of the wagon. I didn't really push him. over, but he lost his balance and went over. He didn't lose his balance until after I struck him with my head. I looked at his leg when he limped around and we thought it was slight at first, we didn't think it was as bad as it was."

This is substantially all of the testimony as to the happening of the accident. It does not disclose actionable negligence on the part of the defendant, but does disclose an accident that nobody could or did anticipate. See Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274, Wickham v. Railway, 160 Mich. 277 (52 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1082, 136 Am. St. Rep. 436, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1069), and Lydman v. De Haas, 185 Mich. 128. The judge should Ihave directed a verdict for the defendant.

The case is reversed, without a new trial, and with costs to the defendant.

BIRD, C. J., and OSTRANDER, STEERE, BROOKE, FELLOWS, STONE, and KUHN, JJ., concurred.

KRANTZ v. DETROIT UNITED RAILWAY.

1. NEGLIGENCE-PERSONAL INJURIES-STREET RAILWAYS.

In an action for personal injuries, evidence that the motorman of a street car noticed a man ahead of him driving a horse close to the track, that he sounded the gong and slowed up in passing the horse and driver, that after the driver passed an obstructing automobile, he turned the horse toward the curb, which threw the flank of the horse toward the car and the car struck him, shoving him on the icy pavement onto the sidewalk and injuring plaintiff, a pedestrian, held, not to show actionable negligence on the part of the motorman or the driver of the horse.

2. SAME-PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Held, that the guiding of the horse toward the curb was not the proximate cause of the injury.

3. SAME-ACCIDENTAL INJURIES-RIGHT TO RECOVER.

Damages cannot be recovered for purely accidental injuries;

if there is no negligence on the part of the defendant, there can be no recovery, no matter how free from negli. gence the plaintiff may be.

Error to Wayne; Webster (Clyde I.), J. Submitted April 11, 1919. (Docket No. 34.) Decided May 29, 1919.

Case by Rose Krantz against the Detroit United Railway and the Michigan Builders' Supply Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant railway on a directed verdict, and non obstante veredicto the supply company. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Dohany & Dohany, for appellant.

Corliss, Leete & Moody and A. B. Hall, for appellee railway.

Keena, Lightner, Oxtoby & Hanley, for appellee supply company.

Authorities discussing the question of injuries received by street car collisions with vehicles and horses are collated in a note in 25 L. R. A. 508.

STONE, J. This is an action for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff. On the 5th day of January, 1914, at about the hour of 5 o'clock p. m., the plaintiff, then a young woman 18 years of age, was walking west along the south side of Forest avenue east (there being double street car tracks in the center of the avenue), between Dequindre street and St. Aubin avenue, when she was injured by reason of a horse which was being driven by an employee of the defendant Michigan Builders' Supply Company, and owned by it, being hit by a street car operated by the servants of the defendant Detroit United Railway, thereby causing the horse to slip or slide upon the ice against and upon the plaintiff, who was at the time on the sidewalk. The horse had been unhitched from its wagon, near Dequindre street, and was being driven to the barn, and the most convenient way to reach the barn was to go along the south side of Forest There was one, and some of the witnesses said two, automobiles parked between the curb and the south street car track about opposite the San Telmo cigar factory there situate. The driver of the horse, who was going in the same direction as the street car, turned toward the tracks to pass the parked automobiles, after looking backward and seeing the street car approaching and crossing the steam railroad tracks at Dequindre street, about 200 feet to the west. Just as the driver of the horse arrived at the front of the front automobile which was facing east, he being behind the horse he testified that the following happened:

avenue.

"Well, as I was turning the horse away from the side of the track, the car brushes by his hind hip and gave him a little shove, and shoved him on his knees and he went east,"

and the horse slid over the curb on the ice, and onto the sidewalk and injured the plaintiff.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court, upon motion, directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Detroit United Railway, on the ground that there was no evidence of any negligence on its part, but submitted the case to the jury as against the defendant the Michigan Builders' Supply Company, reserving the right to direct a judgment non obstante veredicto. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $500, which the trial court later set aside and ordered judgment for both defendants, which was duly entered.

The plaintiff has brought error, and she bases her two assignments of error upon the action of the trial court, first, in directing a verdict for the defendant Detroit United Railway; and second, in setting aside the verdict for plaintiff, and entering judgment for defendant Michigan Builders' Supply Company.

1. Invoking the rule that the most favorable construction that the testimony will admit of must be indulged in behalf of plaintiff, under such circumstances, plaintiff's counsel urge that it was error for the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant Detroit United Railway. Disconnected parts of the testimony of Robert Johnson, the driver of the horse, are referred to by counsel. All of the testimony has been read. Among other things he testified:

"I was driving the horse without any wagon, just with the lines. * * * I drove along by the side of the track, south side. I was following the horse right behind with the lines. * * * The horse was never on the railroad track. When I started to turn, I started to turn the head of the horse toward the curb, just pulled his head towards the curb, and that threw his rump just a little towards the car. His head, I tried to pull him towards the curbstone."

At the time of the accident the horse had got east of, and beyond, the automobiles. The witness had tes