#### Margaret A. Holler, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 23,383. (Not to be reported in full.)

..Abstract of the Decision.

1. Carriers, § 476 * —when evidence shows injury to passenger while attempting to alight before car came to a stop. In an action by a street car passenger to recover for personal injuries, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the car did not stop on the near side of an intersecting street, and that plaintiff sustained her injuries by attempting to alight from the street car before it had come to a full stop.

2. Carriers, § 279*—what degree of care required for safety of passengers. A street car company is not an insurer of the absolute *141safety of passengers, and it is not the duty of the company to protect its passengers against the ’consequences of remote, unusual or unexpected conduct on their part which cannot be foreseen by the exercise of the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the company’s business.

*140Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 17, 1917.

Rehearing denied December 31, 1917.

•Statement of the Case.

Action by Margaret 'A. Holler, plaintiff, against Chicago City Bailway Company, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of the sudden starting of a car from which plaintiff was alighting. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

James D. Power, for plaintiff in error.

Busby, "Weber & Miller, John E. Kehoe and Arthur J. Donovan, for defendant in error; John B. G-uilliams, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

*1413. Instructions, § 14 * —impropriety of emphasizing proposition in different instructions. Emphasis by frequent repetition, even of a particular properly given proposition in instructions, is objectionable.

4. Appeal and ebbor, § 1537*—when repetition and emphasizing of position of party in instructions is harmless error. It is not reversible error to repeat and emphasize in several instructions in a personal injury case the position of one of the parties in reference to a material issue where the verdict is correct.

5. Appeal and error, § 1466*—when error in admission of evidence is not ground for reversal. Error in the admission of evidence is not ground for reversal when the verdict is just and the only one that could have been rendered in the case.