Rapaport v. Pittsburgh Rts. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1915
• Parties: RAPAPORT et al. v. PITTSBURGH RTS. CO.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

93 A. 493
247 Pa. 347

RAPAPORT et al.
v.
PITTSBURGH RTS. CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 2, 1915.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County.

Trespass by P. Rapaport and another, against the Pittsburgh Railways Company, for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Verdict for P. Rapaport for $2,000 and for Israel Rapaport, a minor, for $2,500 and judgment thereon. The appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Israel Rapaport, the minor, was non pros'd.

Argued before FELL, C. J., and BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

Richard C. Long, Clarence Burleigh, and William A. Challener, all of Pittsburgh, for appellant. Ralph P. Tannehill, of Pittsburgh, for appellees.

MOSCHZISKER, J. This was an action to recover damages for injuries to a minor child. Two verdicts were rendered, one in favor of the child for $2,500, and the other in favor of the parents for $2,000. Judgment was entered on each verdict and two appeals were taken by the defendant; but the first of these was not pressed, and a non pros. was entered. The judgment in favor of the parents is now before us and the question involved may be stated thus: Is a parent guilty of contributory negligence who sends an unattended child of tender age across a

93 A. 494

street traversed by a double line of fast moving electric cars, when the parent sees a car standing a short distance away and about to start?

The evidence produced by the defendant tended to show that the child suddenly darted from the pavement in front of the car and was hurt without any negligence on the part of the motorman. In deciding this appeal, however, we shall pay no heed to the testimony presented by the defendant, but confine our attention exclusively to that relied upon by the plaintiffs. In other words, for present purposes, we take the negligence of the defendant as conceded and look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. When the case is thus reviewed, these facts plainly appear: P. Eapaport resided with his wife and family in the city of Pittsburgh on a street which was traversed by a double line of electric cars. On the evening of April 11, 1911, between 7 and 8 o'clock, "about dusk," when the street lamps were lighted, their boy, Israel, a child 3 1/2 years old, was on the front pavement of his parents' house. An older brother gave him a penny, whereupon he looked up to his mother, who was sitting at the second story window, and...