Endicott v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1935
• Docket Number: 362
• Citation: 318 Pa. 12,177 A. 17
• Parties: Endicott v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

177 A. 17

318 Pa. 12

Endicott v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant

No. 362

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 4, 1935

Argued January 15, 1935

Appeal, No. 362, Jan. T., 1934, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1930, No. 4204, in case of Alice M. Endicott v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Judgment reversed and judgment here entered for defendant.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before SMITH, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in amount of $3,000. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment n.o.v., quoting record.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and judgment is here entered for defendant.

Layton M. Schoch and Bernard J. O'Connell, for appellant.

Colbert C. McClain, of McClain & McDevitt, for appellee.

Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE DREW:

Plaintiff recovered judgment for damages for personal injuries sustained by her while a passenger on one of defendant's street cars. Defendant appealed, assigning as error the refusal of its motion for judgment n.o.v.

Testifying in her own behalf, plaintiff stated that she boarded defendant's trolley car, carrying an umbrella and a small bag containing groceries; that there were no empty seats that after the car started another passenger offered her a place at the front end of the "long bench that [ran] lengthwise of the car" on the right-hand side; that she "took hold of the iron bar" in front of the seat and "sat down right away, and the car gave a terrible, terrific jolt" and stopped "very suddenly," and she fell to the platform, suffering the injuries for which she sought recovery. She testified further that as she fell she saw men in front of her "twirling around on the straps," and "people on the seats pushing forward against the others." Another witness stated that there was a "sudden and violent stop," a "jerk, sudden, very sudden," that the passengers who were seated "jostled up against each other," and that he "whirled around" on the strap to which he was holding. This was the whole of plaintiff's case. For the defendant, the motorman and conductor and four of the passengers testified that there was nothing unusual about the operation of the car.

Accepting as true plaintiff's evidence as to how the accident happened, we are required to determine whether it is sufficient to show that the car was operated in a negligent manner. In a long line of decisions, recently reviewed by us in Smith v. Pgh. Rys. Co., 314 Pa. 541, this court and the Superior Court have held that statements that a street car "started violently," "started with a violent jerk," "started with a sudden, unusual, extraordinary jerk," "stopped with a jerk," "came to a hard stop," "started up all of a sudden, with an awful jerk, and stopped all of a sudden," and the like, are not of themselves sufficient to show negligent operation of the car, but that there must be evidence inherently establishing that the occurrence was of an unusual and extraordinary character, or evidence of its effect on other passengers sufficient to show this. Is there such evidence here?

Plaintiff's testimony shows clearly that just as she sat down a stopping of the car caused her to topple over and fall upon her right side on the floor. Under the...