Archer v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co. . Appeal Of Archer.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | PATTERSON, Justice. |
| Citation | 349 Pa. 547,37 A.2d 539 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1944 |
| Parties | ARCHER et al. v. PITTSBURGH RYS. CO. (two cases). Appeal of ARCHER. |
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. Penn Central Transp. Co.
...(1964); Seburn v. Luzerne & Carbon County Motor Transit Co., 394 Pa. 577, 580, 148 A.2d 534, 536 (1959); Archer v. Pittsburgh Rys., 349 Pa. 547, 548--49, 37 A.2d 539, 540 (1944) ('highest practical degree of care'). However, as Dean Prosser correctly states, 'although (this) language . ......
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...(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, u......
-
Longo v. Yellow Cab Co., No. 6669.
...him safely that the burden is cast upon the carrier to exculpate itself from a presumption of negligence: Archer v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 349 Pa. 547, 37 A.2d 539; Schulz v. Reading Transp. Co., 354 Pa. 373, 47 A.2d 213; Dupont v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 337 Pa. 89, 10 A.2d 444, 129 A.L.R. 1337; ......
-
Archer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...conveyance has been amply defined. The carrier is not an insurer but is held to a high degree of care. Archer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 349 Pa. 547, 548, 37 A.2d 539. A car window is an applicance. Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 477, 150 A. 897. Where it is shown that an accident ......
-
Benson v. Penn Central Transp. Co.
...(1964); Seburn v. Luzerne & Carbon County Motor Transit Co., 394 Pa. 577, 580, 148 A.2d 534, 536 (1959); Archer v. Pittsburgh Rys., 349 Pa. 547, 548--49, 37 A.2d 539, 540 (1944) ('highest practical degree of care'). However, as Dean Prosser correctly states, 'although (this) language . ......
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...(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, u......
-
Longo v. Yellow Cab Co., No. 6669.
...him safely that the burden is cast upon the carrier to exculpate itself from a presumption of negligence: Archer v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 349 Pa. 547, 37 A.2d 539; Schulz v. Reading Transp. Co., 354 Pa. 373, 47 A.2d 213; Dupont v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 337 Pa. 89, 10 A.2d 444, 129 A.L.R. 1337; ......
-
Archer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...conveyance has been amply defined. The carrier is not an insurer but is held to a high degree of care. Archer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 349 Pa. 547, 548, 37 A.2d 539. A car window is an applicance. Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 477, 150 A. 897. Where it is shown that an accident ......