Quattrochi v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | 113 |
| Citation | 309 Pa. 377,164 A. 59 |
| Parties | Quattrochi v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 30, 1932
Appeal, No. 113, March T., 1932, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1929, No. 3611, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Rose Quattrochi v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. Affirmed.
Trespass for death of minor child. Before STADTFELD, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff for $4,000, reduced to $3,600, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of judgment n.o.v., quoting record.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
D. H McConnell, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant. -- There is no evidence of negligence: Kochesperger v. Transit Co., 217 Pa. 320.
Walter F. Campbell, for appellee. -- When there is no doubt as to the facts of a case, yet, when there is doubt as to the reasonable and natural inference to be drawn from such facts the case is for the jury: Kane v. Phila., 196 Pa. 502.
It is the duty of a motorman to keep a constant watch of the track directly before him: Goldberg v. Transit Co., 299 Pa. 79.
When there are numbers of children running across a street, the operator of a vehicle must take notice that other children may follow immediately, especially near a schoolhouse: Rankin v. Baking Co., 272 Pa. 108; Frank v. Cohen, 288 Pa. 221.
There may be negligence in failure to have a motor vehicle under proper control without excessive speed: Rankin v. Baking Co., 272 Pa. 108.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
This action of trespass was brought by plaintiff, a widow, to recover damages for the death of her minor son, a child between four and five years of age, who was run down and killed by a street car of defendant company on October 2, 1928. The jury's verdict was for plaintiff in the amount of $4,000, which sum was subsequently reduced to $3,600 by the trial judge upon remittitur of all in excess of the latter amount. Defendant has appealed from the refusal of its motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
The accident occurred directly in front of a public school building on Ravine Street in the Borough of Munhall, Allegheny County. Ravine Street runs north and south, and at the place of accident has a double car line of defendant company. This double track extends only a short distance, consisting in reality of a switch or siding to enable outbound cars from the City of Pittsburgh to pass those inbound at this point. The cartway of Ravine Street is twenty-seven feet wide, the distance from each of the two outside rails of the double track to the curb on either side being six feet two inches. At the time of the accident, which was about twenty minutes to one in the daytime, one of defendant's cars was stopped or parked on the inbound switch so that the rear of the car was slightly beyond the northern side of a paved alley which intersects Ravine Street from the east at a point almost directly opposite the entrance to the school building. There was nothing except the standing car on the inbound track to obstruct the view up and down the street. The Quattrochi boy, in the company of several lads slightly older, ran across the street diagonally southward from the alley way toward the school gate as an outbound car was approaching. All the boys cleared the track safely, except plaintiff's son, who was struck just as he reached the rail, receiving injuries resulting in his death.
Appellant argues that no negligence on the part of the operator of the street car was shown, inasmuch as the testimony indicated the car was not traveling at a speed greater than eight or nine miles per hour, that it stopped within a distance of six or eight feet after hitting the child, and that no question was raised as to the sounding of a bell or other warning. In other words, appellant implies that this was the case of a child darting out of an alley way from behind a stopped car and running into the path of another car approaching with due care and caution. Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must upon a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, we cannot agree with appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial