Hayman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1888
• Docket Number: 267
• Citation: 118 Pa. 508,11 A. 815
• Parties: JOSEPH HAYMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

11 A. 815

118 Pa. 508

JOSEPH HAYMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO

No. 267

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 16, 1888

Argued January 4, 1888

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 3 OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

No. 267 January Term 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 211 March Term 1885, C.P. No. 3.

The action below was in case for negligence by Joseph Hayman against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

At the trial, on April 8, 1886, before FINLETTER, P.J., it was shown that the plaintiff and his wife had purchased tickets for a passage from Philadelphia to Burlington, N.J., at the defendant company's office at the foot of Market street Philadelphia. On their way from the ticket-window to the ferry, the plaintiff was injured in the manner stated in the syllabus and fully set forth in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court ordered a compulsory nonsuit with leave, etc. Subsequently, on argument, a motion to take off the judgment of nonsuit was refused. Thereupon the plaintiff took this writ, assigning as error the order for the nonsuit and the refusal of plaintiff's motion.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr Jacob Singer (with him Mr. Emanuel Furth), for the plaintiff in error:

The contractual relation existing between carriers and passengers exacts of the former, the exercise of the highest degree of care and skill, and requires that all means shall have been taken, beforehand, to guard against all damages that may beset passengers, as far as human care and foresight will go: Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. 479; Sullivan v. Railroad Co., 30 Pa. 234; Penn. R. Co. v. Zebe, 33 Pa. 326; Meier v. Railroad Co., 64 Pa. 226; Del., Lack., etc., R. Co. v. Napheys, 90 Pa. 135; P. & R.R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. 351; Steamship Co. v. Landreth, 102 Pa. 134. In the doctrine of these cases the duty arises out of and is superadded by law to the contract; and when in the performance of this contract a passenger is injured, without fault of his own, the law raises a prima facie presumption of negligence and throws on the carrier the burden of showing that it did not exist.

2. Especially was this a case for the jury in view of the evidence that, immediately after the injury to the plaintiff, the defendant company caused the glass in the swinging door to be covered with a thickly woven wire screen: West Chester R. Co. v. McElwee, 67 Pa. 314; Penn. R. Co. v. Henderson, 51 Pa. 315; McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Pa. 224. Moreover, in order to justify the withdrawal of a case from a jury, the facts should not only be undisputed, but the conclusion to be drawn therefrom should be indisputable. And, whether the facts be disputed or not, if different minds may honestly draw different conclusions from them, the case should be left with the jury: 2 Thomp. Neg., 236.

Mr. David W. Sellers, for the defendant in error:

The defendant company had a station door, in the upper part of which was glass, to enable passengers to see the going and coming of the ferry-boat. The door hung to open outward and inward, in the usual method in hotels and business places. There was no negligence shown on the part of the defendant; hence the plaintiff failed: Patterson's Ry. Acc. Law, § 255.

Before GORDON, C.J., PAXSON, STERRETT, GREEN, CLARK and WILLIAMS, JJ.; TRUNKEY, J., absent.

OPINION

JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

The complaint of the plaintiff in error in this case is, that the court below directed the entry of a compulsory nonsuit on the conclusion of his evidence. The sole question for consideration, therefore, is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The facts disclosed by it are, that the plaintiff had purchased a ticket from the defendant company entitling him to carriage from Philadelphia to Burlington, N.J., and was proceeding from the ticket office to the boat, on which a part of the journey was to be made. His route was through a long narrow passage intended to accommodate persons passing in single file. At the end, near the landing, was a door, the upper half of which was provided with glass, and which swung either way to permit the passage of persons to and from the boat. The person in front of plaintiff passed out at the door, leaving it to swing back behind him. The plaintiff put out his hand to arrest its motion and push it open again, and instead of directing his hand towards the frame or wooden portions of the door pushed it against the glass, which broke under the force of the impact and let his hand through, cutting it and inflicting the injury sued for.

This was the whole case, and upon it the plaintiff...