La Sota v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.

• Citation: 421 Pa. 386,219 A.2d 296
• Parties: Phyllis LA SOTA and Edwin L. La Sota v. PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1966
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 296

219 A.2d 296 421 Pa. 386 Phyllis LA SOTA and Edwin L. La Sota
v.
PHILADELPHIA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 2, 1966.

[421 Pa. 387]

Page 297

William J. McKinley, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Sheldon L. Albert, James E. Beasley, Philadelphia, for appellees.

[421 Pa. 386] Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

[421 Pa. 387] MUSMANNO, Justice.

In the early morning of March 25, 1958, Phyllis La Sota boarded in Philadelphia an autobus of the Philadelphia Transportation Company, which was to take her to Roosevelt Boulevard and Adam Avenue, this particular stop being known as 'the Sears-Roebuck' stop. By the time the bus arrived at a point designated as East of Broad Street, the bus had acquired such an influx of passengers that they occupied all the seats, crowded the aisles, jostled forward and across the dividing white line behind the driver's seat (and beyond [421 Pa. 388] which passengers were not to go) and massed into the stairwell leading to the front door. As the bus proceeded over the stretch between East of Broad Street and the Sears-Roebuck stop, a distance of about two miles, the passengers stirred, pushed and shoved backward and forward and from side to side, creating a situation of disorder which was wholly ignored by the bus driver.

When the bus arrived at the Sears-Roebuck stop, Mrs. La Sota rose from her seat but, on account of the multitude of persons encumbering the aisles, surrounding the coin box and jamming against the sides of the passageway, it took her some two minutes to reach the top of the stairwell where she was unable to obtain protection of the handrailing because of the people huddled against it. At this point a surging movement of the impatient passengers threw her forward, catapulting her out onto the pavement opposite the opened doors. The accompanying violence inflicted on her serious injuries. With her husband, she entered suit against the Philadelphia Transportation Company and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Defendant company asks for judgment n.o.v., contending that it breached no duty owing to Mrs. La Sota. Whatever injuries she sustained, the defendant argues, resulted from the rudeness of her fellow-passengers, over which it had no control, and that her injuries happened after she had reached her destination. What duty did the carrier owe to Mrs. La Sota? By taking her fare, it committed itself to the responsibility of transporting her safely and Delivering her safely. It would little serve a passenger to transport him safely and treat him with kindness throughout the entire journey and then kill him with negligence at the end. In Lyons v. Pitts. Rys. Co., 301 Pa. 499, 152 A. 687, re-approved in Brown v. Ambridge Yellow Cab Co., 374 Pa. 208, 212, 97 A.2d 377, this Court said:

"A common carrier for hire owes [421 Pa. 389] to its passengers the highest degree of care and diligence in carrying them to their destination and (in) enabling them to alight safely' (Hughes v. Pittsburgh Transportation Co., 300 Pa. 55, 150 A. 153) and to avoid any possible danger while doing so.'

Page 298

The defendant company maintains that it cannot supervise the conduct of its passengers, and advances the strange proposition that it cannot be held responsible for misconduct on the part of its transportees unless what they do amounts to a breach of the peace. But it would indeed be a sorry state of affairs if a passenger would have no protection from unruliness and misbehavior in a railroad car, street car or autobus unless tumult in the vehicle reached that state of disorderliness that it called for the intervention of the policy or the marines. The defendant's argument, in this respect, peculiarly enough...