Howell v. Union Traction Co.

CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
CitationHowell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 A. 885 (Pa. 1902)
Decision Date21 April 1902
Docket Number30
PartiesHowell, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company

Argued March 28, 1902

Appeal, No. 30, Jan. T., 1902, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1900, No. 181, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of George W. Howell v. Union Traction Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before FINLETTER P.J.

At the trial it appeared that on March 28, 1900, plaintiff was injured while stepping off a stationary car on defendant's railway. He testified that his heel caught in the step, and that he was thrown. He stated that his shoes had new heels. There was no evidence that there was anything the matter with the step, nor did it appear that the step as a part of the means of transportation was injured.

The plaintiff described the accident as follows:

"A. It was on a Morris and Tasker street car. I took the car at 22d and Lombard, and I went to 5th and Tasker, and there I wanted to alight, and as I went to go out, my foot caught in the step of the car and I was violently thrown and injured the kneecap, so that I have to wear, at the present time, and have to wear it always, a rubber stocking. Q. Tell us a little more fully how that foot was caught and what you did. A. I had one foot on the ground, and as I went to pull the other from the car, that was what threw me. Q. Which foot was on the ground? A. The left. Q. And the right was on the step? A. The right was on the step. Q. How much of it was on the step? A. Two thirds of it was on the step. Q. In what position was your foot on the step? A. The foot was flat. Q. What caught? A. The heel. Q. What efforts did you make to free yourself? A. Well, the foot being on the ground, I made a sudden effort to get the foot loose, and the first time I didn't get it loose, but the second time it came loose. Q. How did you take the foot off -- in what way? A. The foot came off flat, you know. Q. Did you lift your foot or did you slide it? A. Why, I lifted it or tried to lift it. Q. And the last time you lifted it? A. It came loose and I fell; and as I fell, I came very near being crushed under a milk wagon at the same time."

The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.

Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

George J. Edwards, Jr., for appellant.

Dallas Sanders and Thomas Leaming, for app...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Adduci v. Boston Elevated R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 18, 1913
    ... ... Lynn & Boston R. R., 177 Mass. 303, 58 N.E. 1015; Farley ... v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58, 18 A. 1090; ... Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 A ... 885; ... ...
  • Bloomer v. Snellenburg
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1908
    ...Green v. R.R. Co., 214 Pa. 240; Hart v. Grennell, 122 N.Y. 371 (25 N.E. Repr. 354); Diver v. Singer Mfg. Co., 205 Pa. 170; Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338; Crocheron v. Ferry Co., 56 N.Y. 656; Larkin v. O'Neill, 119 N.Y. 221 (23 N.E. Repr. 563). Arthur S. Arnold, with him John D. ......
  • Thomas v. Boston Elevated Ry.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 2, 1907
    ... ... See ... Cahn v. Manhattan Railway (Sup.) 76 N.Y.S. 893; ... Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 A ... 885; Searles v. Manhattan Railway, 101 N.Y. 661, 5 ... ...
  • Adduci v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 18, 1913
    ...v. Lynn & Boston R. R., 177 Mass. 303, 58 N. E. 1015;Farley v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58, 18 Atl. 1090;Howell v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 338, 51 Atl. 885;Werbowlsky v. Ft. Wayne & Elmwood Ry., 86 Mich. 236, 48 N. W. 1097,24 Am. St. Rep. 120;Lorimer v. St. Paul City Ry., 48 M......
  • Get Started for Free