Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | 227 |
| Parties | Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., Appellant, et al |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 12, 1932
Appeal, No. 227, March T., 1932, by defendant, Pittsburgh Railways Co., from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T. 1930, No. 1998, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Frank R Wilkerson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. and North Side Laundry Co. Reversed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before GRAY, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff against defendants for $3,000. Defendant, Pittsburgh Railways Co., appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment n.o.v., quoting record.
The judgment of the court below is reversed as to defendant Pittsburgh Railways Company, and judgment is here entered for said defendant.
D. H. McConnell, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant. -- It was not the duty of the motorman to anticipate that the truck would turn over: Shellenberger v. Transit Co., 303 Pa. 122, 127; Tatarewicz v. Traction Co., 220 Pa. 560; Beaumont v. Traction Co., 298 Pa. 223.
There is no evidence that, if he had stopped sooner, the accident would have been avoided.
John Wirtzman, for appellee. -- If the motorman had been looking, he would have seen the truck in such position as to make it impossible for the street car to pass, and would then have had his car under control so as to stop if necessary: Jenkins v. Fady, 294 Pa. 490.
The fact that the truck driver was negligent did not relieve the defendant if the motorman of the street car was also negligent: Gorman v. Charlson, 287 Pa. 410.
Frank K. Willmann, for intervening defendant, was not heard.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Plaintiff was injured in a collision between a street car of the appellant, Pittsburgh Railways Company, and a truck owned and operated by the North Side Laundry Company, the other defendant. From judgment entered on the verdict against both defendants, the railways company appealed, assigning as error the refusal of its motions for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v.
When the facts of the case are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as they must be in our consideration of the motion for judgment, they may be briefly expressed as follows: Plaintiff was a passenger on an inbound car of appellant on California Avenue, Pittsburgh. This street, on which there are two car tracks, about 4 1/2 feet apart, is about 30 feet wide between curbs. The car was running on the right-hand or inbound track, and plaintiff was seated at the front of the car, on the left side, next to the motorman. As the car approached a left curve, a truck of the laundry company approached the curve from the opposite direction, on its proper side of the street. In rounding the curve, the left rear wheel of the truck caught on the inside rail of the outbound track, and the truck ran about 50 feet with the wheel sliding on that rail, the left front wheel being on that part of the pavement between the two tracks. When the truck was about 20 feet from the car, the driver swung its front wheels to the right, the rear of the truck swerved to the left, and immediately thereafter the side of the truck struck the car. The left front window of the car was broken and part of the metal framework surrounding it was driven inside the car. This framework,...
To continue reading
Request your trial