". . . acts or statements which, although subsequent in point of time to a personal injury, follow at once thereafter and serve to characterize the occurrence, or which are done or made under such circumstances as to exclude the possibility of premeditation or design and which are so close to the injury as to be fairly a part of the occurrence, are admissible as part of the res gestae. . . ." [Citing Alabama Power Company v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145 (1944)] In Alabama Power Company v. Adams, supra, the Court of Appeals had the following to say about the rule:
A spontaneous exclamation by a bystander as to the way an accident happened is admissible as a part of the res gestae of the accident. Harrison v. Baker, 260 Ala. 488, 71 So.2d 284; Ala. Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Kelly v. Hanwick, 228 Ala. 336, 153 So. 269; East Ala. Express Co, v. Dupes, 271 Ala. 504, 124 So. 809. In a "slip and fall" case, the jury can infer negligence from the condition of the offending instrumentality and the length of time since the floor had been swept or inspected. Delchamps, Inc. v. Stewart, 47 Ala. App. 406, 255 So.2d 586; Food Town Stores, Inc. v. Patterson, 282 Ala. 477, 213 So.2d 211; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 69 So.2d 274; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 96 So.2d 741; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Bennett, 267 Ala. 538, 103 So.2d 177. A trial court's oral charge must be taken as an entirety and if in its entirety it correctly states the applicable law, there is no reversible error even if a portion of the charge, if considered alone, would be erroneous. Fuller v. Darden, 274 Ala. 447, 149 So.2d 805; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25.
When trial judge refuses to grant a new trial the presumption in favor of the verdict is thereby strengthened. Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738; Tidmore v. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 243, 32 So.2d 769. The measure of damages or compensation for physical suffering is left to the sound discretion and good judgment of the jury trying the case, and it is within the province of the jury to award such amount as it believes is reasonable in the light and under guidance of all the facts and circumstances in connection with the injury. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 31 Ala. App. 438, 18 So.2d 145; Montgomery City Lines v. Hawes, supra. HARWOOD, Judge.
As recently as May 23, 1944, in an opinion written by Judge Rice, this court upheld the judgment of the lower court in awarding damages to a plaintiff in very much the same manner and under somewhat similar circumstances as claimed in this case. Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, ante, p. 438, 18 So.2d 145. Our courts conform to the rule that a boarding passenger on a street car or bus (as in this case) is presumed to have reached a place of security and safety when he or she has entered the portals of the conveyance, and there is no duty imposed on the driver to keep the car stationary until the passenger is seated.
The case was carefully tried under the judicial guidance of the able trial judge. It was the judgment of the court that the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed. Under the law and facts in the case, we are compelled to the conclusion that we are without authority to take a contrary view. Davis v. State, 29 Ala. App. 421, 198 So. 153; Taylor v. State, 30 Ala. App. 316, 5 So.2d 117; Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, ante, p. 438, 18 So.2d 145. It is ordered that the cause be affirmed.