Harding v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
| Decision Date | 04 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | 242 |
| Citation | 66 A. 151,217 Pa. 69 |
| Parties | Harding, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 10, 1907
Appeal, No. 242, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 861, on verdict for defendant in case of Frank V. Harding v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before MARTIN, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court gave binding instructions for defendant.
Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
John McConaghy, Jr., for appellant.
Russell Duane and Thomas Leaming, for appellee, were not heard.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
There was no evidence of defendant's negligence. The plaintiff had no recollection of the accident and the witnesses on his side who saw it only said in general terms that when the two cars passed each other the running board of the one on which plaintiff stood was crowded and several men jumped, fell or were pushed or brushed off. A witness for the defense testified that as the cars passed a man on plaintiff's car extended his hand, grasped the other car and was thrown backwards against the men behind him, including plaintiff. This is the most plausible account that was given, and apart from it there is nothing to show that plaintiff on the approach of the car did not lose his nerve and jump or fall from the car.
Under the circumstances there was no presumption of negligence on the part of defendant, but even if it had been clearly shown it would have been altogether immaterial. Plaintiff was riding voluntarily in a place of manifest danger, and in so doing he assumed all the risks of the situation. It is settled law that it is contributory negligence which will bar recovery, to stand on the platform, or the running board of a car, when a place can be reached inside: Thane v Traction Co., 191 Pa. 249; Bumbear v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 198; and it is equally clear that one who takes a position of manifest and imminent danger assumes the risk of his position whether he could have got a safer place or not: Bard v. Traction Co., 176 Pa. 97; Malpass v. Pass. R.R. Co., 189 Pa. 599.
It is argued by appellant that he was not warned by the conductor of the danger of...
To continue reading
Request your trial