Miller v. Pa. R. Co.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 154 A. 924,303 Pa. 524 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 1931 |
| Parties | MILLER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
303 Pa. 524
MILLER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 13, 1931.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County; W. Heber Dithrich, Judge.
Action by John Miller against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FRAZER, C. J., and WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Robert D. Dalzell (of Dalzell, Dalzell & McFall), of Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Joseph A. Rossi, Wilbur F. Galbraith, and Julius L. Schoenberg, all of Pittsburgh, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, a passenger on a train of defendant company, sued to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as a result of being thrown or falling from the car while the train was in motion. Plaintiff was traveling from Chicago to Pittsburgh, and, according to his statement of claim, "at a point near Garfield, Ohio, while walking from the vestibule of a car of defendant company, for the purpose of entering the next coach, the train swayed suddenly, thereby precipitating plaintiff through the open vestibule door, or hatchway, which had negligently, carelessly or recklessly been allowed to remain open while the train was in motion, thereby inflicting on plaintiff bodily injuries." The evidence shows that Miller walked from the scene of the accident, to a nearby farm house, where he was cared for until taken to a hospital. His claim for damages is based upon a permanent injury sustained as a result of the accident; he is now suffering from a form of cerebral concussion, which has incapacitated him from performing any but the simplest tasks. Defendant filed no affidavit of defense; at the first trial, the jury awarded plaintiff a verdict of $12,000. Defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v. was refused, but a new trial granted. Upon the second trial, the jury returned a verdict in his favor for the sum of $10,690. Defendant again filed a motion for judgment n. o. v., which, after argument before the court in banc, was refused. This appeal followed.
The point urged by defendant company before this court is that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury, and it argues that the testimony of Miller was contradictory to
such extent that the jury could only have guessed as to how the accident happened, that Miller failed to prove negligence on the part of defendant company or its agents, and that he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...(Emphasis supplied). See also: Zaltouski v. Scranton Railway Co., 310 Pa. 531, 534, 165 A. 847; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924. In Thomas v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co., 148 Pa. 180, 183, 23 A. 989, 15 L.R.A. 416, we said: 'But to throw this burden [that ......
-
Cornwell v. Cornwell, No. 7389.
...107 U.S. 519, 521, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618. Cf. also, Ross v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 950, 951; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. R., 303 Pa. 524, 527, 154 A. 924, 925; Brown v. Armstrong & Latta Co., 239 Pa. 549, 554, 555, 87 A. 11, 5 Hallowell v. Darling, 32 App.D.C. 405; Kenyon v. Y......
-
Wood v. Pa. R. Co.
...before a train is started. In the Hassan Case, negligence was shown; Inthe instant case it was not. In the case of Miller v. P. R. R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924, the plaintiff, a passenger, was passing from one coach to another when the train was in motion and was thrown from the train by......
-
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Shellenbarger, No. 6482.
...Pacific Co. v. Hanlon (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 294; Rivers v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 N. J. Law, 513, 83 A. 883; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924; Robinson v. United States Ben. Soc., 132 Mich. 695, 94 N. W. 211, 102 Am. St. Rep. 436; Robinson v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13......
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...(Emphasis supplied). See also: Zaltouski v. Scranton Railway Co., 310 Pa. 531, 534, 165 A. 847; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924. In Thomas v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co., 148 Pa. 180, 183, 23 A. 989, 15 L.R.A. 416, we said: 'But to throw this burden [that ......
-
Cornwell v. Cornwell, No. 7389.
...107 U.S. 519, 521, 2 S.Ct. 840, 27 L.Ed. 618. Cf. also, Ross v. United States, 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 950, 951; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. R., 303 Pa. 524, 527, 154 A. 924, 925; Brown v. Armstrong & Latta Co., 239 Pa. 549, 554, 555, 87 A. 11, 5 Hallowell v. Darling, 32 App.D.C. 405; Kenyon v. Y......
-
Wood v. Pa. R. Co.
...before a train is started. In the Hassan Case, negligence was shown; Inthe instant case it was not. In the case of Miller v. P. R. R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924, the plaintiff, a passenger, was passing from one coach to another when the train was in motion and was thrown from the train by......
-
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Shellenbarger, No. 6482.
...Pacific Co. v. Hanlon (C. C. A.) 9 F.(2d) 294; Rivers v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 83 N. J. Law, 513, 83 A. 883; Miller v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 303 Pa. 524, 154 A. 924; Robinson v. United States Ben. Soc., 132 Mich. 695, 94 N. W. 211, 102 Am. St. Rep. 436; Robinson v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13......