Swink v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1923
• Docket Number: 300,299
• Parties: Swink et ux., Appellants, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

120 A. 827

277 Pa. 220

Swink et ux., Appellants, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co

Nos. 299, 300

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 9, 1923

Argued March 20, 1923

Appeals, Nos. 299 and 300, Jan. T., 1923, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1919, No. 2019 on verdict for defendant, in case of Frederick L. Swink and Lillian Swink, his wife, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries to wife. Before QUIGLEY, P.J. specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Judgment on directed verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was judgment, quoting it.

Judgment affirmed.

Eugene Raymond, with him John Martin Doyle, for appellants.

Layton M. Schoch, for appellee.

Before WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On May 16, 1919, the plaintiff, Mrs. Lillian Swink, in company with a lady friend, took passage on one of defendant's northbound trolley cars in Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia. This car stopped at Huntingdon Street, where the ladies were directed to transfer to a car in the rear, which they did, walking in the paved cartway by a second car and entering the third. While walking close to the side of the second car, its rear emergency folding doors opened and one of them struck Mrs. Swink's arm and hand, and this suit was brought by her and her husband for the injuries thus sustained. The doors when opened projected six inches beyond the line of the car, but, as there was a space of eight feet between the car and curb and a sidewalk beyond, there was no occasion for a pedestrian walking close to the car. The doors in question were operated by a lever located behind the motorman at the front end of the car, and it does not appear he could see plaintiff or knew where she was when they were opened, or that the manner of their opening was out of the ordinary. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant and from judgment entered thereon plaintiffs have appealed.

Mrs Swink continued a passenger while walking from car to car (Keator v. Traction Co., 191 Pa. 102), but, as the accident did not happen through any defective appliance or means of transportation, the burden was upon plaintiffs to show the defendant's negligence (P.R.R. Co. v. MacKinney, 124 Pa. 462; Farley v. Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58); that rule is especially applicable where the passenger is injured while about the premises of the carrier: Herstine v. Lehigh V.R.R. Co., 151 Pa. 244, 253; Hayman v. Penna. Railroad Co., 118 Pa. 508. An...