Pittsburgh Rys Co. v. Givens
| Decision Date | 30 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 1809. |
| Citation | 211 F. 885 |
| Parties | PITTSBURGH RYS. CO. v. GIVENS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Clarence Burleigh and Wm. A. Challener, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Meredith R. Marshall and Rody P. Marshall, both of Pittsburgh, Pa for defendant in error.
Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and McPHERSON, Circuit Judges.
Anna Givens, the defendant in error (hereinafter called the plaintiff), brought suit in the court below against the Pittsburgh Railways Company, plaintiff in error (hereinafter called the defendant), to recover damages resulting from injuries caused by the collision of an automobile with a street car of the defendant company in which she was riding the collision having occurred, as was alleged, by reason of the negligence of the said defendant company. From the judgment on a verdict in plaintiff's favor, the defendant has sued out this writ of error.
It appears from the record before us, that the jurisdiction of the case rested upon the diverse citizenship of the parties.
On the night of December 3, 1911, while the plaintiff was a passenger on a street car operated by the defendant, the said car collided with an automobile at the intersection of two streets, viz., Murray Avenue along which the street car was running, and Darlington Road which crosses Murray Avenue at right angles. The automobile was being driven along Darlington Avenue, somewhat on the right side thereof, and the street car was proceeding on the inbound track nearest the approaching automobile. It appears that, when the trolley car had nearly crossed Darlington Road, the automobile had approached so closely that, as it turned sharply to the right on Murray Avenue, to avoid a head-on collision with the car, the fender of the car struck the left front wheel of the automobile and swung it around, so that the rear thereof struck the rear part of the street car, smashing in two windows and throwing the plaintiff out of her seat, thereby inflicting the injuries complained of. On the right hand side of the inbound track, facing the direction in which the trolley car was moving, and a short distance before reaching Darlington Road, there was a signal to run slowly.
There is much conflict of testimony as to the speed at which the car was running at the time it crossed Darlington Road. Witnesses for the plaintiff who were in the automobile testified that the trolley car was running from 25 to 28 miles an hour, one of the witnesses saying that he believed it was running at 40 miles an hour. The plaintiff testifies that before the car reached Darlington Road, the high speed attracted her attention and caused her to put down a book which she was reading, and that immediately afterward she felt the crash of the collision. Testimony on behalf of the defendant was that they were running much more slowly, and that the car was within control. The passengers in the automobile testified that they were looking out for the car as they approached the crossing, and had slowed down to 6 or 7 miles an hour, within 60 feet of the tracks.
In its assignments of error, the defendant makes three objections to the charge of the court below.
'First. The court erred in charging the jury as follows:
'Second. The court erred in charging the jury as follows:
'Third. The court erred in charging the jury as follows, in affirming plaintiff's fourth point: 'Fourth. Even though the chauffeur of this automobile was negligent, if you find that the motorman was guilty of any negligence, contributing to the collision, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff."
Of course in this case, as in all others, the reviewing court must consider objections to specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc.
...Our Court there ruled that plaintiff had a choice of remedies, either assumpsit or trespass on the case. In Pittsburgh Rys. v. Givens, 211 F. 885 (3d Cir.1914), the court of appeals held that the duty of a common carrier to a passenger arises from the contract of carriage, indicating that t......
-
Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Bobo
... ... 898; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 ... U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co. v ... Lincoln, 223 F. 896, 139 C.C.A. 334; Pittsburgh Rys ... Co. v. Givens, 211 F. 885, 888, 128 C.C.A. 263; ... Ramjak v. Austro-American S.S. Co., 186 F. 417, 108 ... C.C.A. 339; Irvine v. D.L. & ... ...
-
Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Ciechowski
...experienced in the business of common carrier would exercise in order to secure the safety of its passengers. Pittsburgh Rys. Co. v. Givens, 211 F. 885, 128 C. C. A. 263. This carrier was responsible to the defendant in error for her safety, so far as the exercise of human prudence, caution......