McBride v. McNally

• Decision Date: 05 January 1914
• Parties: McBRIDE et ux. v. McNALLY.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

89 A. 1131
243 Pa. 206

McBRIDE et ux.
v.
McNALLY.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 5, 1914.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County.

Trespass by W. D. McBrlde and wife against William McNally for personal injuries. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FELL, C. J., and MESTREZAT, POTTER, STEWART, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

L. C. Barton and Wm. J. Brennen, both of Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Rody P. Marshall and Meredith R. Marshall, both of Pittsburgh, for appellees.

STEWART, J. The appellant, operating on the Ohio river an excursion steamboat of which he was owner, had engaged to carry the members of a certain church society on an excursion up and down the river, for a lump sum. At the appointed time he conducted his boat to the appointed landing where the passengers were to embark, and having landed, with the bow of his boat up the stream, extended the gangplank to admit the passengers. The appellee Mrs. McBride, who had purchased a ticket for the excursion from the society, started to board the steamboat by way of this gangplank, when, in consequence of the gangplank turning or tilting, she was thrown into the river and injured. The action was brought to recover damages for the injuries she sustained. The negligence complained of was: First, failure to properly and securely fasten the gangplank at both ends; and, second, failure to properly fasten the boat; and, third, the making an improper landing for the purpose of taking on passengers. The issues of fact were determined by the jury adversely to the defendant. The assignments of error relate to the instructions of the court with respect to the law of the case. In his charge the learned trial judge gave the following instructions:

"The simple fact that the accident happened, if it happened upon some means of transportation, this being a common carrier, threw the burden on the defendant to satisfy you by the weight of the evidence as to how it occurred, and that it occurred without negligence on his part."

"But if you find that she (the plaintiff) had bought a ticket in the regular way and was a prospective passenger, then the defendant owed to her the duties of a passenger, and he owed her—not insurance—the common

89 A. 1132

carrier does not insure the safety and lives of his passengers; but he is held to the highest degree of care in caring for them when they are in the act of boarding his means of conveyance, and while they are on the means of...