Lyons v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE WALLING:
• Citation: Lyons v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 301 Pa. 499, 152 A. 687 (Pa. 1930)
• Decision Date: 24 November 1930
• Docket Number: 175,176
• Parties: Lyons et ux. v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., Appellant

152 A. 687

301 Pa. 499

Lyons et ux. v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., Appellant

Nos. 175, 176

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 24, 1930

Argued October 2, 1930

Appeals, Nos. 175 and 176, March T., 1930, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1928, No. 2771, in case of James H. Lyons and Ella N. Lyons, his wife, v Pittsburgh Railways Co. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before DREW, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for James H. Lyons for $2,000 and for Ella N Lyons for $5,000. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were various portions of charge, quoting record.

The judgments are affirmed.

D. H. McConnell, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant.

Thomas M. Marshall, Jr., with him Henry X. O'Brien, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WALLING:

The plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. James H. Lyons, brought this suit to recover for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant, and, from judgments entered upon verdicts in their favor, the defendant has appealed. The record discloses no error. On the afternoon of August 3, 1928, plaintiffs were passengers on defendant's car in Balph Avenue, and alighted therefrom at its regular stop at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue, Bellevue. There was a tenfoot cartway between the track and the curb partially occupied by a row of automobiles, headed in the same direction as the street car, which had stopped pursuant to a traffic signal. This stop was at the beginning of a curve, and in swinging around it as the car moved forward its rear end overhung some three feet of the ten-foot cartway. Plaintiffs, who had just alighted and whose way to the curb was temporarily blocked by the automobiles, were knocked down and injured by this movement of the street car. They were the last passengers to leave the car at this stop and were in reality caught between this overhang of the car and the automobiles standing opposite. The facts appeared from the testimony of the plaintiffs and of a Mr. Longabaugh, who was driver of one of the automobiles. The conductor was the only witness called by the defense and he largely corroborated the other witnesses except that he thought plaintiffs had left the car some thirty seconds before the accident, while the other evidence was that they had just stepped therefrom.

They left the car at the front end in view of the motorman, who could also see the automobiles in the cartway and of course knew that in starting forward around the curve the rear of his car would cover a portion of the cartway. Hence, the care he should have exercised for the safety of passengers might have prompted him to wait until they had reached a place of safety. His failure to do so justified a finding of negligence. It was defendant's duty not only to carry plaintiffs safely but to afford them an opportunity to alight and pass out of danger. See Bockelcamp v. L. & W.W.R.R. Co., 232 Pa. 66; Englehaupt v. Erie R.R. Co., 209 Pa. 182. That the drivers of the automobiles which obstructed plaintiffs' path may also have been at fault did not excuse the motorman. In Duffy v. P.R.T. Co., 291 Pa. 564, plaintiff was denied redress because, after alighting from the car, she voluntarily walked near the track when she could and should have stepped away, while in the instant case the automobiles prevented plaintiffs from so doing.

There is no merit in the complaint that the charge was unfair and inadequate, for it was neither. That the trial...