Dupont v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 02 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | 237 |
| Citation | 337 Pa. 89,10 A.2d 444 |
| Parties | Dupont, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 29, 1939
Appeal, No. 237, Jan. T., 1939, from judgment of C.P. No. 3 Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1937, No. 410, in case of Edmund J Dupont v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass. Before FINLETTER, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Jury disagreed and was discharged. Motion for judgment on the whole record granted and judgment entered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned related to the action of the court below in granting motion for judgment on the whole record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Harry C. Liebman, for appellant.
Philip Price, of Barnes, Myers & Price, for appellee.
Before SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Plaintiff's evidence discloses the following facts: On the morning of June 7, 1937, plaintiff and a business associate were passengers in defendant's train, traveling from Philadelphia to Wilmington. They occupied a seat on the right side of the car, plaintiff sitting next to the window. While the train was proceeding through open country in the vicinity of Chester, a window on the opposite side of the car, two seats in front of plaintiff, was suddenly shattered, and a small particle of glass entered his eye, causing the injuries to recover for which this action was brought.
There was no testimony offered by plaintiff as to what caused the window to break. The car was air-conditioned, and all the windows were closed. His companion, in describing its condition after the accident, testified that there was a hole in the lower right side of the glass, about an inch in diameter, with cracks extending across the pane. A search made immediately thereafter by the conductor and the witness failed to reveal any object that penetrated the window, or anything by which the cause of the accident could be determined. No person was to be seen by the witness who might have hurled a missile at the glass, although if there had been one, he would have disappeared from the view of those in the rapidly moving train. There was no evidence of any defect in the pane of glass, in the frame holding it, or in the manner in which it was secured.
The trial judge submitted the case to the jury, which failed to agree upon a verdict, and was discharged. The defendant then moved for judgment upon the whole record, which was granted by the court below. The plaintiff thereupon appealed to this Court.
It is conceded by plaintiff upon this appeal that there is no evidence of want of care on the part of the carrier, but he asserts that the breaking of defendant's appliance, with a consequent injury to himself, raises a presumption of negligence which defendant must rebut. Although a carrier is held to a high standard of care, not every injury to a passenger is presumed to arise from negligence on its part: Zaltouski v. Scranton Ry. Co., 310 Pa. 531; Creahan v. Penna. R.R. Co., 123 Pa.Super. 268.
To support such a presumption, it must appear that the injury was caused by something connected with the means or appliances of transportation, such as defective tracks, cars, machinery, or motive power, or by some other thing which the carrier can and ought to control as a part of its duty to carry passengers safely: Bickley v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., 257 Pa. 369; Swink v. Phila. Rapid Trans. Co., 277 Pa. 220; Burns v. Penna. R.R. Co., 294 Pa. 277.
It is true that a window is an "appliance" within the meaning of this rule: Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, but there must be more than evidence that the appliance was involved in the accident. For example, in Ginn v. Penna. R.R. Co., 220 Pa. 552, where a train window was shattered by an object which was thrown against it while another train was passing, it was held that there was no presumption of negligence because there was nothing to connect the accident with any defect in the appliance, or its operation by the railroad. Similarly it has been held that the shutting of a door on a passenger's fingers, without proof that the door was...
To continue reading
Request your trial