Schickel v. Yellow Cab Co. of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 07 January 1952
• Citation: 85 A.2d 138,369 Pa. 356
• Parties: SCHICKEL v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

85 A.2d 138

369 Pa. 356

SCHICKEL v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 7, 1952.

Samuel Kravitz, Philadelphia, for appellant.

James J. Leyden, Wm. A. Schnader and Schnader, Harrison, Segal &amp Lewis, all of Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before DREW, C. J., and STERN, STEARNE, LADNER and CHIDSEY JJ.

The opinion of Judge Bluett of the court below follows:

On October 17, 1947, about 6:45 P. M., plaintiff and her sister and the sister's two children were walking North on the East side of Twelfth Street between Market and Filbert Streets Philadelphia. Twelfth Street is a one way street with traffic going South. They saw a taxicab coming South on Twelfth Street, hailed it, the driver pulled over to the West side of the street and stopped. The front of the cab was pointing toward the curb and the rear extended out on 'sort of on an angle'. At the place where the cab pulled into the curb there was a space between parked cars where 'maybe two cars could have got in there', and there was a distance from the cab to the right side of the curb of about a foot and a half or two feet. It was described as 'a long step to the curb'. It was just beginning to get dark and different colored lights gave an impression that the cab was closer to the curb. Plaintiff and her companions crossed to the West side of Twelfth Street to the West sidewalk. Without leaving the cab the driver opened the door to allow plaintiff and her companions to enter. There was water in the gutter which plaintiff saw but thought she could safely step into the cab in one step to avoid the water. As her foot touched the bottom of the cab floor she lost her balance. To avoid falling backwards she braced herself, but hit her head on the top of the cab door and was injured.

The case came on for trial before Bluett, J., with a Jury on October 16 1950. At the close of plaintiff's testimony, defendant's motion for a non-suit was granted. Plaintiff's motion to take off non-suit was before the Court for consideration.

There was no contention that there was any defect in the taxicab, and it was, therefore, the burden of the plaintiff to establish negligence. Nebel v. Burrelli, 1945, 352 Pa. 70, 41 A.2d 873.

Under the testimony of the plaintiff it would seem to be clear that there was not sufficient evidence to permit the jury to decide that the driver of the cab had stopped in a dangerous place or had done anything of a negligent character in the handling of the cab. A cab company has no control over public streets and highways. The only duty of cab drivers as to stopping on these streets is not to stop at a place where it is obviously unsafe or where a reasonably prudent person would believe that it contained manifest characteristics of potential harm under the circumstances. MacDonald v. Philadelphia Rural T. Co., 1942, 147 Pa.Super. 220, 24 A.2d 37.

There were no such characteristics of potential harm in the case before us. There is no testimony that the driver even knew...