Phillips v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | 2685 |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 225,358 Pa. 265 |
| Parties | Phillips, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Transportation Company et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued December 4, 1947
Appeal, No. 190, Jan. T., 1947, from judgment of C.P. No. 1 Phila. Co., March T., 1946, No. 4162, in case of Horace Phillips v. Philadelphia Transportation Company et al. Judgment reversed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before BLUETT, J.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $4,750 and against defendant transportation company and for additional defendants defendant transportation company's motion for judgment n.o.v. granted. Plaintiff appealed.
The judgment is reversed with directions that judgment be entered for the plaintiff on the jury's verdict.
Raymond A. White, Jr ., for appellant.
Harold Scott Baile , with him Bernard J. O'Connell , for appellees.
Before MAXEY, C.J., LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and JONES, JJ.
This suit in trespass was brought to recover damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff due to the alleged negligence of Philadelphia Transportation Company which joined John Meehan and Son and Costonzo Centrone as additional defendants. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in a specified sum against the original defendant but absolved the additional defendants of liability. On motion of the original defendant, the court below entered judgment n.o.v. for it on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; and that is the sole question here involved on this appeal by the plaintiff.
In the procedural situation present, the evidence in the case, as a whole, is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, any conflict in the testimony being resolved in his favor and the benefit of every inference of fact reasonably deducible from the evidence, being accorded him: Scholl v. Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company , 356 Pa. 217, 219-220, 51 A.2d 732; Williams v. Philadelphia Toilet and Laundry Company , 150 Pa.Super. 643, 646, 29 A.2d 336. So viewing the evidence, we find the material facts to be as follows:
Philadelphia Transportation Company, the original defendant, contracted with John Meehan and Son for the repaving of a portion of Richmond Street in North Philadelphia. Meehan assigned the contract to Costonzo Controne who was to perform the actual work. Richmond Street runs in a north-south direction, and there is laid upon it a double set of street car tracks on which cars run in the respective opposite directions. Between 8 and 8:15 o'clock on the morning of October 2, 1944 (the repaving work having then been in progress some four to five weeks), Phillips, the plaintiff, an employee of Centrone, was performing his assigned duty of assisting in the removal of Belgian blocks (which had been loosened by pneumatic drill) from along the west rail of the northbound track by picking up the blocks and passing them to a fellow worker for the latter's placement at the west curb line. In order to perform his task, Phillips assumed a standing position varyingly in the dummy area between the two tracks and by straddling the west (inside) rail of the northbound track. He faced slightly toward the south and, from that position, had a clear view of 625 feet in the southerly direction. In his immediate vicinity, at least two pneumatic drills and an air compressor were in almost continuous operation. The noise from those machines made it next to impossible for the plaintiff to hear the approach of oncoming street cars; and, no watchman had been assigned to warn of their approach. On the morning abovementioned, northbound cars passed the point of the plaintiff's work approximately every minute and a half. There is nothing in the record to show how often southbound cars passed. Street cars had passed the plaintiff, while he was in a standing position at his place of work, without touching him. But, the clearance in the dummy area was not sufficient for a person to remain there untouched if two street cars, travelling in opposite directions, passed simultaneously. While the plaintiff was working in one of the two positions above-described (there was some conflict as to exactly which one of the two he was in at the time of the accident), he looked toward the south and saw no street car approaching. A little later (estimated variously from one to nearly three minutes), as the plaintiff again leaned over to pick up a stone block, he was struck on the head by the left front of a northbound street car which was travelling at an approximate speed of twenty miles per hour. The impact threw Phillips under the street car; and, thereby he suffered the serious injury for which he instituted this suit.
Plainly enough, the plaintiff was working in a place and under conditions fraught with obvious risks and dangers. Consequently, his legal duty in the circumstances was to exercise a high degree of care for his own safety. But, whether he fulfilled that responsibility is not to be determined as a matter of law. There is no established legal standard on the basis whereof it can arbitrarily be said that, upon indisputable facts conclusive on the plaintiff, he was guilty of conduct which the law positively denounces as wrongful.
The nature of the plaintiff's work required him to be in the position of danger, where he was injured, for the discharge of the assigned duty of his employment; and that fact has its bearing on the relativity of the care he should have exercised and the requirements of his work. Being lawfully engaged on his job near or upon the tracks, he had rights and duties essentially different from those of persons about to cross railway tracks at grade in the course of their travel. The law did not require of him that he watch constantly and continuously for the approach of street cars. It was his legal duty to keep a reasonable lookout and to exercise care in the circumstances commensurate with the dangers and...
To continue reading
Request your trial