Bloom v. Whelan
| Citation | 56 Pa.Super. 277 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 295-1912 |
| Parties | Bloom v. Whelan, Appellant |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued December 9, 1913
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C. P., No. 4, Phila. Co.-1910 No. 2,629, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Arthur Bloom by his next friend and father, Abraham Bloom, v. Patrick J Whelan.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries to a boy five years old. Before Audenried, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, Arthur Bloom, for $ 500. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
Affirmed.
G. Von Paul Jones, for appellant. -- This case is ruled by Severino v. Transit Co., 236 Pa. 258.
Harry G. Sundheim, with him Herbert P. Sundheim, for appellee. -- A case strikingly similar to the case at bar is Walbridge v. Schuylkill Electric Ry. Co., 190 Pa. 274.
Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady, Head and Porter, JJ.
In this case, as in many of its class, the testimony as to the most material feature presents such radical contradictions that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the jury to reconcile them. In this respect their verdict establishes they believed and adopted the testimony advanced in behalf of the plaintiff. Many of the important facts are not in controversy.
The defendant was driving his own car at the time it struck the plaintiff child. He was driving along a street over which he frequently passed. The street was paved with fire brick and was not traversed by any street car line. At the time of the occurrence in question it was entirely free from traffic of any character to impede or control the movement of the defendant's car. In the direction he was going the street declined sharply down grade. His car was coasting, that is, running by gravity without the use of its own power. Its motion was therefore comparatively quiet, unaccompanied by the noise incident to a throbbing engine. The portion of the street he selected for the passage of his car was within from four to six feet of the curb line of the sidewalk. As he approached the point where the accident occurred, a number of children were collected on the sidewalk. The point of collision was about midway in the block. As to his knowledge that the children were on the sidewalk, the defendant, in answer to a question, said, " Naturally a driver, looking in the cartway, is not looking at the houses on the sidewalk, but as you are looking directly, there is a shadow that you can catch going along, and there apparently appeared to be a group of boys on the sidewalk." His friend sitting in the seat beside him also testified he saw the group as the car approached.
Under these circumstances the question of first importance is, at what rate of speed was the car traveling as it approached, under the conditions stated, the group of children? On this vital point the defendant answers: Because of his experience of such things, he testifies his car was partly under the influence and control of the brake and could be readily stopped almost instantly. He further adds that he saw no indication of any intent on the part of any of the boys to leave the sidewalk until the little plaintiff suddenly appeared immediately in front of his car, so that it was impossible to stop it until the radiator had struck the child and knocked him down. If this testimony truly portrayed the occurrence just as it happened, it would be difficult to point to any fact indicating lack of due care on the part of the defendant except perhaps the fact that he drove so close to the sidewalk when there was apparently no reason he should do so.
On the other hand, there is an abundance of testimony to warrant a finding that his car was moving at much greater speed than his testimony fixes its rate. One disinterested witness declared to the jury that just west of the point of collision the car passed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Leininger
... ... possible, as to save it from harm. See Tatarewicz v ... United Traction Co., 220 Pa. 560; also Bloom v ... Whelan, 56 Pa.Super. 277. The true test, as stated by ... Mr. Justice FRAZER, in Kuehne v. Brown, 257 Pa. 37, ... is as to whether the ... ...
-
Silberstein v. Showell, Fryer & Co.
...Co., 187 Pa. 57; Walbridge v. Schuylkill Electric Ry. Co., 190 Pa. 274; Slavin v. Northern Cambria St. Ry., 47 Pa.Super. 454; Bloom v. Whelan, 56 Pa.Super. 277; Lorah v. Rinehart, 243 Pa. 231; Blakley Pittsburgh Rys., 243 Pa. 250. Edward M. Biddle, with him Robert T. McCracken, for appellee......
-
Hook v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa.
...street, in a crowded neighborhood, where a large number of children are playing was negligence under all the circumstances: Bloom v. Whelan, 56 Pa.Super. 277; Fairman v. Dorney et al., 73 Pa.Super. 238; Ditchfield et ux. v. Tharp, 75 Pa.Super. 563; Mulhern et al. v. Phila. Homemade Bread Co......
-
Ditchfield v. Tharp
...for the protection of children who congregate in the vicinity of a school house." The same line of reasoning was followed in Bloom v. Whelan, 56 Pa.Super. 277. The learned trial judge carefully submitted to the jury questions of the negligence of the defendant and the alleged contributory n......