Archer v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co. . Appeal Of Archer.

Decision Date25 May 1944
Citation349 Pa. 547,37 A.2d 539
PartiesARCHER et al. v. PITTSBURGH RYS. CO. (two cases). Appeal of ARCHER.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

349 Pa. 547
37 A.2d 539

ARCHER et al.
v.
PITTSBURGH RYS.
CO. (two cases).
Appeal of ARCHER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 25, 1944.


Appeals Nos. 58, 59, March term, 1944, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, at No. 36, July term, 1942; T. M. Marshall, Judge.

Trespass by Stella Archer and Daniel Archer against Pittsburgh Railways Company, a corporation, now in the hands of W. D. George, Thomas B. Berner, and Thomas Fitzgerald, in bankruptcy, to recover for injuries suffered by Stella Archer when she was caught between the door and body of defendants' trolley car. From a denial of plaintiffs' motion for new trial after a verdict for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Before MAXEY, C. J., and DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE, and HUGHES, JJ.

Daniel F. McCarthy, of Pittsburgh, for appellants.

D. H. McConnell and J. R. McNary, both of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice.

This is an action in trespass by Stella Archer and Daniel Archer, her husband, appellants, against the Pittsburgh Railways Company, appellee, for personal injuries suffered by the wife when her left shoulder and breast were caught between the door and the body of appellee's trolley car. A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee. This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to award a new trial for alleged errors in the charge of the trial judge.

The testimony of appellant and her witnesses supports the following facts: On November 25, 1940, about 8 A. M., Stella Archer boarded one of appellee's streamline trolley cars at the corner of Hampshire and Beechview Avenues in the City of Pittsburgh. She entered the door at the front end of the car but was unable to leave the second step bacause the car was already filled with passengers. She paid her fare and remained where she was After several stops were made, at each of which more passengers were taken on, the car arrived at South Hills Junction where other passengers moved forward to get out and she was forced against the door in such manner that when it was opened without warning her left shoulder and breast were caught between the door and the body of the trolley, causing the injuries complained of. She was corroborated by the motorman with regard to the crowded car. He did not see her until he learned that she was caught in the door. Appellant testified that no warning was given before the door was opened; that when she was caught she shouted but evidently was not heard, and that the car proceeded approximately 100 feet before the door was closed and she was released.

The most important...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Benson v. Penn Central Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 7 d1 Julho d1 1975
    ... ... 39] Paul E. Moses, Evans, Ivory & Evans, Pittsburgh, for appellant ...         James P. McKenna, Jr., ... The railroad did not file an appeal within 30 days after the entry of the order of the trial ... Pittsburgh Rys., 417 Pa. 581, 583, 584, 209 A.2d 289, 290 (1965); Griffith ... 577, 580, 148 A.2d 534, 536 (1959); Archer v. Pittsburgh Rys., 349 Pa. 547, 548--49, 37 A.2d 539, 540 ... ...
  • Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 20 d2 Abril d2 1965
    ...(Seburn v. Luzerne & Carbon [417 Pa. 584] County Motor Transit Co., 394 Pa. 577, 580, 148 A.2d 534, Archer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 349 Pa. 547, 37 A.2d 539), a carrier does owe to its passengers the highest degree of care for their safety (Seburn, supra; Archer, supra,). Moreover, under......
  • Longo v. Yellow Cab Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 30 d5 Janeiro d5 1948
    ... ... Hughes v. Pittsburgh Trans. Co., 300 Pa. 55, 150 A. 153; Petri v. Pittsburgh ... exculpate itself from a presumption of negligence: Archer v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 349 Pa. 547, 37 A.2d 539; Schulz v ... 170; Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh 79 F. Supp. 481 Rys. Co., 309 Pa. 381, 163 A. 909; Pennsylvania R. Co. v ... ...
  • Nebel v. Burrelli Appeal Of Burrelli.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 9 d1 Abril d1 1945
    ...Rapid Transit Co., 277 Pa. 220, 120 A. 827; Petri v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 328 Pa. 396, 400, 195 A. 107, 109; Archer v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 349 Pa. 547, 548, 37 A.2d 539, 540. The verdict of the jury may well have resulted from a belief that merely because plaintiff was injured while a passen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT