Picard v. Ridge Avenue Passenger Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 25 January 1892
• Docket Number: 307
• Parties: Picard, Appellant, v. The Ridge Avenue Passenger Railway Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

23 A. 566

147 Pa. 195

Picard, Appellant, v. The Ridge Avenue Passenger Railway Company

No. 307

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 25, 1892

Argued January 11, 1892

Appeal, No. 307, Jan. T., 1891, by plaintiff, from judgment of nonsuit by C.P. No. 1, of Philadelphia Co., Sept. T 1887, No. 250.

Trespass by Sylvan Picard against the Ridge Avenue Passenger Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial before BIDDLE, J., the court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.

Error assigned was the refusal to take off the nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Frederick Carroll Brewster, Jr., for appellant, cited Stager v. Pass. Ry. Co., 119 Pa. 74; Sanford v. Hestonville etc. Ry. Co., 136 Pa. 92; Fisher v. Ry. Co., 131 Pa. 297; Miller v. Bealer, 100 Pa. 583; Hill v. Trust Co., 108 Pa. 1; McGrann v. Ry. Co., 111 Pa. 171; Eppendorf v. R.R. Co., 69 N.Y. 195.

J. Howard Gendell, for appellee, cited Stager v. R.W., 119 Pa. 70; Reddington v. The Traction Co., 132 Pa. 154.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We are of opinion that the plaintiff was properly nonsuited by the court below. According to his own statement he had no case. He says in his testimony: "I was standing at the look-out corner of Twenty-first and Ridge road, when the car came down the Ridge, and I signaled the driver to stop. He stopped the car. By the time it came to me it had a little speed, but was moving so little that it would not be noticed. I was facing the left hand side of the car coming down, placed my left hand on the hand-rail and my right foot on the step, when I heard the brake go off, and before I had a firm footing the car moved, pulled me along, and broke my arm. I was dragged a short distance."

We fail to find in this statement any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant company. It is absurd to suppose that the mere taking off the brake of a slowly moving horse car would give it such a jerk at starting as would break a man's arm. It may be that a prudent man would attempt to board a moving car, but it ought to be understood that he does so at his own risk. If, as was alleged, the conductor was inside the car at the time of the occurrence, it was not evidence of negligence on the part of the company. He cannot be on the platform at all times. His duty requires him to...