Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co.

• Citation: 35 A. 140,176 Pa.St. 376
• Parties: EVERS et ux. v. PHILADELPHIA TRACTION CO.
• Decision Date: 15 July 1896
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

35 A. 140
176 Pa.St. 376

EVERS et ux.
v.
PHILADELPHIA TRACTION CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1896.

35 A. 141

Appeal from court of common pleas, Philadelphia county.

Action by Michael Evers and wife against the Philadelphia Traction Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. L. Vanderslice and J. Howard Gendell, for appellant.

Wendell P. Bowman, for appellees.

DEAN, J. On Sunday forenoon, the 17th of September, 1893, Michael Evers, 4 1/2 years old, the son of plaintiffs, was run over and killed by defendant's street car on Front street, between Bainbridge and Catherine, in the city of Philadelphia. The plaintiffs lived at the corner of Meade and Swanson streets; the latter being parallel with Front, and near to it Meade is a narrow street or alley, running from Front to the river. The family of plaintiffs was made up of the parents and eight children. The mother had washed and dressed Michael, the deceased child, and then had permitted him to go with his elder brother, Thomas, to a coal box on the lower side of Meade street, while she proceeded to wash and dress another of her children. About the time she had finished this one, two other of her children, girls, returned from church. On inquiry of them, she was told the two boys were still by the coal box. She then directed one of these to tell the boys to come home. One of the sisters immediately did as directed by the mother. The elder boy obeyed, but the younger refused. The sister, on reporting to the mother, was immediately sent to bring him home. In this interval, however, the boy had left the coal box, and crossed over to the west side of Front street, a half square distant, and then started to run across again to the east side, when he was run over by defendant's car. The father peddled brooms with a horse and wagon, and at times manufactured them himself in the house where he lived. Two of his daughters had employment, and earned a living, but the family was in moderate circumstances. The parents brought suit against the defendant for damages, alleging the death was caused by its negligence in running the car at an unusual speed. Further, that when the child started from the west side of Front street to run across the track to the east side, he was in plain view of the motorman for a distance of 60 feet; that although witnesses on the sidewalk saw the danger, and screamed to him, the motorman made no effort to stop the car, and appeared to be looking...