Walters v. Phila. Traction Co.

• Citation: 28 A. 941,161 Pa. 36
• Decision Date: 02 April 1894
• Docket Number: 211
• Parties: Walters v. Phila. Traction Co., Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

28 A. 941

161 Pa. 36

Walters v. Phila. Traction Co., Appellant

No. 211

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 2, 1894

Argued March 22, 1894

Appeal, No. 211, Jan T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1892, No. 335, on verdict for plaintiff, Thomas Walters. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before FINLETTER, P.J.

At the trial it appeared that plaintiff was injured while attempting to get on a street car. He testified in part as follows:

"On Friday, March 13, 1891, I was coming down to the city, and I stopped at Thirty-second street, in West Philadelphia, and waited for a car. I saw a car coming, and I hailed the car and tried to board it. It gave a jerk and I slipped. I went to save myself and caught ahold of the handle, and the step pulled me under, and I hurt my shoulder, and arm, and side and hip, and my knee. . . . Q. Did you, or did you not, say that the car stopped? A. It did stop. Q. The car stopped? A. It stopped, and when I fell off the conductor pulled me on again."

The gripman, the conductor and two passengers testified that the car was moving when plaintiff attempted to get on.

The court charged in part as follows:

"You have heard the testimony of the witnesses, and you have had an opportunity to observe their manner while on the stand. The presumption is that every witness who appears upon the stand intends to tell the truth, but it does not always follow that, because a witness intends to tell the truth, he does tell the truth. Very much depends upon the position that he occupies in relation to the case in which he is called upon to testify, and therefore, even when it appears in the case that witnesses contradict each other, positively and flatly contradict each other, you should be cautious in arriving at the conclusion that either has committed perjury or intended to commit perjury. [The jury should, at all times where testimony is conflicting, endeavor to reconcile it and, if possible, come to the conclusion that the witnesses intend at least to tell the truth, although there is evidence of such a character as to impress the jury unfavorably.]

"In this case you have heard the witnesses for the plaintiff and the defendants, and it is your duty carefully to consider all that each of the witnesses said, and consider the testimony of each witness in the light of the testimony of all the other witnesses and the circumstances of the case.

"Of course, from what I have said to you, you will see that [the important question in this case is whether or not the car had stopped or had come to such a condition of stopping as to induce the passenger to believe that it was about to stop and if it had come to such a condition, and if he had come to that conclusion and he was about to enter and it was started...