Malone v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co.

Decision Date03 January 1893
Docket Number101,100
PartiesMalone v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., Appellant; HUCKEL v. PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE R.R., APPELLANT
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued November 10, 1892

Appeal, No. 101, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 134, on verdict for plaintiff, Mrs. E. P. Malone.

Trespass for personal injuries by negligence of defendant.

At the trial, before McCLUNG, J., it appeared that, on June 17 1890, plaintiff and Lizzie Huchel bought tickets from Pittsburgh to Aliquippa station and return. On the return from Aliquippa, according to plaintiff's testimony, the conductor refused to take the tickets, saying they were not good on his train, and put plaintiff and her companion off at Shannopin. The conductor on the other hand testified that plaintiff asked for a stop-over check, and upon his refusal to give it, she refused to give up her ticket, and that he thereupon required her to leave the train.

The facts as to the conduct of plaintiff after she was ejected appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

When plaintiff was on the stand she was asked this question "Q. In addition to the sickness you have described, just state how it has affected you in regard to the charge of your boarding house." Objected to.

Plaintiff's counsel proposed to prove that through her sickness and disability she has been deprived of carrying on her business and household duties.

Objected to that it can only have one purpose, that plaintiff is attempting to prove loss of profits in the boarding house. Objection overruled and exception. [6]

Plaintiff testified that she had not been able to do any work since the accident.

Defendant's points were as follows:

"1. That under the testimony in the case the verdict must be for the defendant." Refused. [1]

"2. That if the jury believe that the plaintiff was put off at Shannopin, a regular station of the railroad, and where the train upon which she came to Nimicks stopped, and where she could have gotten on the train, no damages may be allowed for anything that happened after she left Shannopin to go to Aliquippa, or for the results of anything that happened after she left Shannopin." Refused. [2]

"3. That if the jury believe that the plaintiff was put off the cars at Shannopin, a regular station of the railroad, without any rudeness or discourtesy, then the measure of the damages is actual compensation for loss of time while waiting for the next train, which in this case is nominal." Refused. [3]

"4. If the court refuses to affirm the third point, that if the jury believe that the plaintiff was put off at Shannopin, a regular station of the railroad, where she could have gotten on the train upon which she afterwards came to Chartiers, then the measure of the damages is actual compensation for the time which would be lost waiting at Shannopin, and a reasonable compensation for any humiliation or mortification that there may have been in the case. Answer: This point ignores the fact of the knowledge of the plaintiff that she was at such station, and with such facilities as are described, and possibly other material facts, and is therefore refused." [4]

"5. That the defendant can only be held liable for results as under the circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by the conductor could result from the plaintiff getting off the train; and that the plaintiff would get caught in a rain on her way back to Aliquippa, was not such a result as could be foreseen by the conductor. Answer: Refused. The general principle is correctly stated, but its application is for the jury." [5]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $700. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-5) instructions, quoting them; and (6) rulings on evidence, quoting bill of exceptions and evidence.

Appeal, No. 100, Oct. T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 133, on verdict for plaintiff, Lizzie Huckel, for $225. Argued with preceding case.

The facts were similar to those of the preceding case.

Judgment affirmed.

Edwin W. Smith, Knox & Reed with him, for appellant. -- The injuries to plaintiff were not the proximate result of defendant's conduct: West Mahanoy Twp. v. Watson, 116 Pa. 344; Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. 363; Davey v. London & S.W. Ry., L.R. 11 Q.B. Div. 213: Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Fleming, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 128; Francis v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 5 Mo. Ap. 7; Lewis v. Flint R.R., 54 Mich. 55; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Col. 344.

C. F. McKenna, Edw. J. McKenna with him, for appellee, cited West Mahanoy Twp. v. Watson, 116 Pa. 351; Bambrey v. B. & O.R.R. Co., 2 Monaghan, 109; Sutherland on Damages, p. 62; L.S.M.S. Ry. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519; Davey v. London & S.W. Ry. Co., L.R. 11 Q.B. Div. 213; Lewis v. Flint Ry., 54 Mich. 55; Davis v. Garrett, 6 Bing. 716; Coppin v. Braithwaite, 8 Jur. 875; Rose v. Beatie, 2 N. & McC. 538; Brown v. R.R., 54 Wis. 342.

Before PAXSON, C.J., STERRETT, GREEN, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM, MITCHELL and HEYDRICK, JJ.

OPINION

MR. MITCHELL, JUSTICE:

The first assignment, that the verdict should have been directed for the defendant, was not seriously pressed, as in fact it could not be except by totally ignoring the plaintiff's evidence.

The main stress of the defence rests upon two propositions, that the plaintiff should not have undertaken to return to Alequippa, and that having done so, she was herself responsible for all the injury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Powell v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Junio 1910
    ...Railroad, 110 Mo.App. 725; Evans v. Railroad, 11 Mo.App. 463; Tilburg v. Railroad, 217 Pa. 618; Arnold v. Railroad, 115 Pa. 135; Malone v. Railroad, 152 Pa. 390; Railroad v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. This sufficiently indicates our views upon the legal propositions as disclosed by the record now ......
  • Hamilton v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 3 Enero 1898
    ...306; Cleveland, etc., R.R. v. Rowan, 66 Pa. 393; Lake Shore, etc., R.R. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519; Ham v. Canal Co., 155 Pa. 548; Malone v. R.R., 152 Pa. 390; Arnold Penna. R. Co., 115 Pa. 135; Penna. R. Co. v. White, 88 Pa. 327; Drake v. Kiely, 93 Pa. 492; Evans v. St. L., etc., Ry., 11 M......
  • Powell v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Junio 1910
    ...618, 66 Atl. 846, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 359; Arnold v. Pa. Ry. Co., 115 Pa. 135, 8 Atl. 213, 2 Am. St. Rep. 542; Malone v. Pillsbury & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 152 Pa. 390, 25 Atl. 638; Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. Co. v. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519, 6 Atl. This sufficiently indicates our views upon the l......
  • Miller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 17 Mayo 1911
    ... ... 210 Pa. 615; McCurdy v. Traction Co., 15 Pa.Super ... 29; McCaw v. Traction Co., 205 Pa. 271; Reber v ... Traction Co., 179 Pa. 339; Malone v. R.R. Co., ... 152 Pa. 390; Bumbear v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 198 ... There ... was negligence on the part of defendant: McCurdy v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT