Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 40
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | MR. JUSTICE KEPHART: |
| Citation | 150 A. 897,300 Pa. 474 |
| Parties | Orms v. Traction Bus Co., Appellant |
| Docket Number | 40 |
| Decision Date | 27 May 1930 |
150 A. 897
300 Pa. 474
Orms
v.
Traction Bus Co., Appellant
No. 40
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 27, 1930
Argued: March 25, 1930
Appeal, No. 40, March T., 1930, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Cambria Co., Sept. T., 1928, No. 817, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Charles D. Orms v. Traction Bus Company. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before REED, P.J., of orphans' court, specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,082.50. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment for defendant n.o.v., quoting record.
Judgment affirmed.
J. Earl Ogle, Jr., for appellant, cited: Paynter v. R.R., 62 Pa.Super. 455; Blew v. Transit Co., 227 Pa. 319; Zolden v. Traction Co., 94 Pa.Super. 191; Lonzer v. R.R., 196 Pa. 610; Cohen v. Transit Co., 228 Pa. 243; Patterson v. Ry., 210 Pa. 47; Kreamer v. R.R., 214 Pa. 219.
Frank P. Barnhart, for appellee, cited: Meier v. R.R., 64 Pa. 225; Paynter v. R.R., 62 Pa.Super. 455; P.R.R. v. Weiss, 87 Pa. 447; McCafferty v. R.R., 193 Pa. 339; Kane v. Phila., 196 Pa. 502; Doud v. Hines, 269 Pa. 182.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
OPINION
[300 Pa. 476] MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:
The transportation of passengers by motorbuses is the business of a common carrier. Appellant was so engaged when the appellee was injured as a passenger on one of its buses. The injury occurred while his arm rested on a window sill, the sash falling on and severely injuring that member. Damages were recovered in the court below which that court refused to disturb on a motion for judgment n.o.v. The assignments in this appeal do not raise any trial mistakes; but appellant plants its right to a reversal on the refusal of the court below to grant judgment n.o.v.
Appellee contends that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. Prima facie, where a passenger on a common carrier is injured, without fault of his own, by the carrier, its employees or anything connected with the appliances of transportation, a legal presumption of negligence is cast on the carrier which it must disprove: Meier v. P.R.R. Co., 64 Pa. 225; Fern v. P.R.R. Co., 250 Pa. 487; Johnston v. Director General, 286 Pa. 166. But, as stated in Blew v. P.R.T. Co., 227 Pa. 319, it is not every injured passenger who can recover damages in an action against a common carrier transporting him at the time he sustains his injury."No presumption of negligence arises merely from the fact that the plaintiff was injured while a passenger." The rule is limited by the manner in which the passenger received his injury. Where an accident is occasioned by a third person, or [300 Pa. 477] some instrumentality outside the conveyance, the carrier is not responsible for the injury; there must be evidence tending to connect the carrier or some of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...carrier is called upon the disprove such negligence. This doctrine, with its limitations, was well expressed in Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 476, 150 A. 897: 'Prima facie, where a passenger on a common carrier is injured without fault of his own by the carrier, its employees, or a......
-
Pender v. Cook, 4
...trial court: Miller's Est., 279 Pa. 30, 38; Thompson v. Schoch, 254 Pa. 585, 589. The evidence submitted to reform the instrument was the [300 Pa. 474] declarations of Mr. Stephens and a memorandum accompanying the signing of the last note, which appears in the reporter's notes; the jury, h......
-
Wood v. Pa. R. Co.
...presumption of negligence arose which entitled him to go to a jury. Mr. Justice Kephart, in the case of Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 150 A. 897, after referring to the general rule with relation to presumption of negligence in the case of carriers, said (page 476 of 300 Pa., 150 A......
-
Zaltouski v. Scranton Railway Company, 105
...Blew v. P.R.T. Co., 227 Pa. 319; Swink v. P.R.T. Co., 277 Pa. 220; Zolden v. Traction Co., 94 Pa.Super. 191; see Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474. The mere happening of the collision between defendant's street car and a truck not under its control or management, which was all plaintiff......
-
Pedretti v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
...carrier is called upon the disprove such negligence. This doctrine, with its limitations, was well expressed in Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 476, 150 A. 897: 'Prima facie, where a passenger on a common carrier is injured without fault of his own by the carrier, its employees, or a......
-
Pender v. Cook, 4
...trial court: Miller's Est., 279 Pa. 30, 38; Thompson v. Schoch, 254 Pa. 585, 589. The evidence submitted to reform the instrument was the [300 Pa. 474] declarations of Mr. Stephens and a memorandum accompanying the signing of the last note, which appears in the reporter's notes; the jury, h......
-
Wood v. Pa. R. Co.
...presumption of negligence arose which entitled him to go to a jury. Mr. Justice Kephart, in the case of Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474, 150 A. 897, after referring to the general rule with relation to presumption of negligence in the case of carriers, said (page 476 of 300 Pa., 150 A......
-
Zaltouski v. Scranton Railway Company, 105
...Blew v. P.R.T. Co., 227 Pa. 319; Swink v. P.R.T. Co., 277 Pa. 220; Zolden v. Traction Co., 94 Pa.Super. 191; see Orms v. Traction Bus Co., 300 Pa. 474. The mere happening of the collision between defendant's street car and a truck not under its control or management, which was all plaintiff......