Bradley v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 206 |
| Citation | 238 Pa. 315,86 A. 200 |
| Parties | Bradley, Appellant, v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 18, 1912
Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Venango Co., January T., 1910, No. 36, on verdict for defendant by direction in case of George Bradley, Jr., v Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before CRISWELL P.J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The Court gave binding instructions for the defendant.
Error assigned, among others, was in affirming defendant's point for binding instructions.
The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Gervaise G. Martin, with him A. B. Jobson and Clan Crawford, for appellant. -- The relation of carrier and passenger begins as soon as one intending in good faith to become a passenger enters in a lawful manner upon the carrier's premises to engage passage: Powell v Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 220 Pa. 638; Rhoads v. Cornwall & Lebanon R.R. Co., 48 Pa.Super. 310.
When the thing which causes the injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendant that the accident arose from want of care: Fisher v. Ruch, 12 Pa.Super. 240; Matthews v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 18 Pa.Super. 10; Shafer v. Lacock, 168 Pa. 497; McCoy v. Ohio Valley Gas Co., 213 Pa. 367.
A. R. Osmer, with him J. H. Osmer and N. F. Osmer, for appellee. -- The plaintiff was not a passenger: Penna. R.R. Co. v. Price, 96 Pa. 256; Bricker v. Philadelphia & Reading R.R. Co., 132 Pa. 1.
The mere fact of intention to come on board the car which intention has not been by acts or otherwise, indicated to the servants of the railroad company, does not render the person having such intention a passenger: 6 Cyc. 539.
There was no evidence in the case from which there could be a justifiable inference that the plaintiff's alleged attempt to become a passenger was communicated to the defendant, much less that he had been accepted as such and it would have been error to have submitted that question to the jury: Sartwell v. Wilcox, 20 Pa. 117; Howard Express Co. v. Wile, 64 Pa. 201.
The doctrine res ipsa loquitur does not apply to this case: East End Oil Co. v. Torpedo Co., 190 Pa. 350.
Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
The facts in this case are substantially as follows: On the evening of August 11, 1909, the plaintiff went to the passenger station of the defendant company, at Polk, Pa., at about seven o'clock. He concluded to go to Franklin upon a train leaving about nine o'clock, and with that purpose in view remained at or near the station. Shortly after eight o'clock, while the plaintiff was seated upon a baggage truck, which stood upon the station platform, a freight train passed rapidly upon the second track from the platform. While the train was passing, an iron brake bar which formed part of the brake equipment, broke, or became loosened at one end fell down and was dragged for some distance, and then broke away entirely, and was hurled violently from the train, striking the station platform, and rebounding therefrom, struck and crushed plaintiff's hand, which rested upon the truck at his side. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for the resulting injury. At the trial a verdict for the defendant was directed, upon the ground that the evidence did not warrant a finding by the jury of negligence upon the part of the defendant company. Afterwards, in an opinion refusing a new trial, the learned judge of the court below considered the legal questions raised, most elaborately, and concluded that under the evidence, the plaintiff could not, at the time and place of the accident, be properly regarded as having assumed the relation of passenger to the defendant company; and further that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moquin v. Mervine
...A defendant cannot be held liable for the results of such an accident: Brown v. Boom Co., 109 Pa. 57; Wall v. Lit, 195 Pa. 375; Bradley v. Ry., 238 Pa. 315. are three of the so-called "guest-passenger cases," in which the situation was really one of unavoidable accident, though the opinions......