Schley v. Susquehanna & New York Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 21 March 1910
• Docket Number: 285
• Citation: 227 Pa. 494,76 A. 207
• Parties: Schley, Appellant, v. Susquehanna & New York Railroad Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

76 A. 207

227 Pa. 494

Schley, Appellant, v. Susquehanna & New York Railroad Company

No. 285

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 21, 1910

Argued February 15, 1910

Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. Lycoming Co., June T., 1907, No. 320, on verdict for defendant by direction of the court in case of George Schley v. Susquehanna & New York Railroad Company. Affirmed.

Trespass for damages for personal injuries. Before ORMEROD, J. specially presiding.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Error assigned was in directing a verdict for defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

M. C Rhone, with him A. R. Jackson, for appellant. -- The court could not hold as a matter of law that the relation of carrier and passenger had ended before the accident: Penna. R.R. Co. v. Kilgore, 32 Pa. 292; Lyons v. Penna. R.R. Co., 129 Pa. 119; Bass v. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co., 105 N.W. 151.

Seth T. McCormick, with him C. H. McCauley, for appellee. -- Where a passenger has had reasonable time and opportunity to leave the car and does not do so, he thereby forfeits the rights due him as a passenger: Glenn v. R.R. Co., 165 Ind. 659 (75 N.E. Repr. 282); Fremont, etc., R.R. Co. v. Hagblad, 101 N.W. 1033; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. Tracey, 109 Ill.App. 563; Houston, etc., R.R. Co. v. Batchler, 83 S.W. Repr. 702; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Barrett, 16 Ill.App. 17; Jeffersonville, etc., R.R. Co. v. Parmalee, 51 Ind. 42; Kaase v. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co., 92 S.W. Repr. 444; Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. v. Frazer, 2 A. & E.R.R. Cases (N.S.), 206.

Before FELL, C.J., MESTREZAT, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff was injured while in a combination passenger and baggage car that had been detached from a train and was standing on a siding in a yard at a station at the end of the defendant's road. The car had reached the station twenty-five minutes before the accident. It had stood there on the main track ten minutes and had then been placed on the siding, where it was struck by a freight car and derailed.

The plaintiff had got on the car twelve miles from the station at which he was injured. He testified that he had been drinking and had a bottle of whiskey with him and drank while on the train; that he went to sleep when three miles from the station and from that time he knew nothing until after the accident. The only evidence in support of the allegation of negligence was that the brake of the freight car did not hold. The brakeman called by the plaintiff was unable to explain why it did not hold, and it was not shown that it was defective before the accident. The conductor, called by the defendant, testified that, when the train reached the station and other passengers had got off, he went to the plaintiff and awoke him, told him they were at the end of the line and to get off; that he supposed the plaintiff had got...