Green v. Pittsburg, McKeesport & Greensburg Street Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1908
• Docket Number: 10
• Citation: 68 A. 675,219 Pa. 241
• Parties: Green, Appellant, v. Pittsburg, McKeesport & Greensburg Street Railway Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

68 A. 675

219 Pa. 241

Green, Appellant, v. Pittsburg, McKeesport & Greensburg Street Railway Company

No. 10

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 6, 1908

Argued October 16, 1907

Appeal, No. 10, Oct. T., 1907, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Westmoreland Co., May T., 1905, No. 16, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Bridget Green v. Pittsburg, McKeesport & Greensburg Street Railway Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before McCONNELL J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

James L. Kennedy, with him Joseph A. McCurdy and J. E. B. Cunningham, for appellant. -- The case was for the jury: Cameron v. Citizens' Traction Co., 216 Pa. 191; Williams v. Meadville, etc., Ry. Co., 31 Pa.Super. 580; Baylor v. Stevens, 16 Pa.Super. 365; Rife v. Middletown, 32 Pa.Super. 68; Valentine v. Colburn Co., 10 Pa.Super. 453; Brooks v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., 218 Pa. 1; Morgan v. Westmoreland Electric Co., 213 Pa. 151; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519; Tilburg v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co., 217 Pa. 618; Kreamer v. R.R. Co., 214 Pa. 219; Finch v. Conrade, 154 Pa. 326.

The question as to whether the injury was the proximate cause was for the jury: Brashear v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 180 Pa. 392; Cohen v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co., 211 Pa. 227; Drake v. Kiely, 93 Pa. 492.

The happening of an accident to a passenger on a street car, if the accident is connected with the means of transportation, raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the company: Dougherty v. Pittsburg Railways Co., 213 Pa. 346; McCafferty v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 193 Pa. 339; O'Connor v. Scranton Traction Co., 180 Pa. 444; Dixey v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 180 Pa. 401.

James S. Moorhead, with him Robert W. Smith, for appellee. -- There was no proof that the explosion in the controller was the proximate cause of the injury. Granted the explosion, still the plaintiff must show that it was harmful to her: Trout v. Turnpike Co., 216 Pa. 119.

Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

Not only was the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff insufficient to warrant an inference that plaintiff's injuries were received in the way alleged in the statement of claim, but it left the immediate and proximate cause of the accident wholly undisclosed. The plaintiff had been a passenger on one of the defendant company's open summer cars, occupying a seat in one of the transverse rows back of the middle of the car, and near the end of the row. It was at an early hour in the nighttime, and there were some fifteen or twenty other passengers in the car. Suddenly and without warning, the electric controller on the rear platform burned or blew out with something of a report, followed by a display of electricity at the rear end of the car. The car was proceeding at a moderate rate, as it was approaching a crossing where certain passengers expected to alight. Many of the passengers, if not all, left the car, because of the electric disturbance, before it came to a stop. When the stop was made, the plaintiff was found lying upon the ground some fifteen feet back from the rear end of the car. In the statement filed, the cause of action is declared to be defendant's negligence in "permitting the electric machinery of said car to become so deranged and out of order, thereby setting fire to said car and charging said car with electricity," and "neglecting to stop said car to permit plaintiff to escape danger. Whereupon and by reason of defendant's carelessness, plaintiff was violently and suddenly thrown from said car," etc. With respect to the negligence charged because of failure to stop the car, it is only necessary to say that there is no evidence from which the jury could have found that the car was not stopped with reasonable promptitude under the circumstances. It may be conceded in regard to the defective controller, only for the purposes of this case however, that a presumption of negligence attends the blowing or burning out of a controller of an electric street car. Had the plaintiff averred, and offered evidence in support, that she was injured as the direct result of the defective working of the controller as by burning, or in some other way as the result of an intervening cause which was put in operation in consequence of the action of the controller, without fault of her own, with the presumption of negligence on part of the defendant attending, her case must...