Williams v. Reading Co.

• Decision Date: 11 May 1949
• Docket Number: No. 9781.,9781.
• Citation: 175 F.2d 32
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. READING CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

175 F.2d 32 (1949)

WILLIAMS v. READING CO.

No. 9781.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued February 8, 1949.

Decided May 11, 1949.

Joseph Weiner, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wilfred R. Lorry, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Henry R. Heebner, Philadelphia, Pa. (Wm. Clarke Mason, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and O'CONNELL and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

KALODNER, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment n. o. v. entered against him on defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 50,¹ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., following a jury verdict in his favor. The question before us is whether the plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the issues of negligence of the defendant and its causal relation to the death of plaintiff's decedent, Al Williams.² Since all the operative facts occurred in Pennsylvania, and jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, the law of Pennsylvania applies.

Viewed in favor of the plaintiff, as it must be, the evidence is as follows. At about 6:20 a. m. on January 5, 1945, Williams and his brother-in-law, George Tolbert, having completed their night's work at the plant of W. C. Hamilton Paper Company, boarded defendant's local train at Miquon, Pennsylvania, bound for Philadelphia. Because of the crowded condition of the cars, Williams took a seat in the front of the last car, and Tolbert in the second or middle car. They usually left the train at the Columbia Avenue station in Philadelphia. On this occasion Tolbert alone got off at Columbia Avenue and when the train pulled out of the station he saw Williams seated in the last car, which was a combination passenger and baggage car. Williams at the time had his hat over his eyes, apparently asleep.

After Columbia Avenue, the next stations are Spring Garden Street and then the Reading Terminal, the final stop. When the train left Columbia Avenue, the doors on the left side of the cars were closed and those on the right opened; they remained open until the train reached Reading Terminal. As the train left Spring Garden Street, a trainman, who was then standing in the front end of the third car, called out "Reading Terminal next." The train, however, made a stop before the Reading Terminal at Race Street Tower to permit another train travelling in the opposite direction to cross the tracks ahead of it. Race Street Tower is about five blocks after Spring Garden Street and three blocks before Reading Terminal. The train involved here was on the westernmost track, referred to as track "G"; east of track "G" is the southbound "main" track, and east of that is the northbound "main" track, and then two other sets of tracks not relevant here. Insofar as we are concerned, the tracks are elevated above the street level.

At about 7:05 a. m., a workman found Williams lying between the two "main" tracks not far from Race Street Tower, nor far from where the train had stopped there. His head was toward Spring Garden Street, and his feet toward Reading Terminal. He was dead, and his body was cold. It was stipulated that he suffered a fractured skull.

It may be noted that Tolbert testified that it was dark when he and Williams boarded the train, and the workman who found Williams' body testified that when he came on duty at 7:00 a. m. it was not light enough to work, but that he had to wait several minutes.

All of the evidence above related is the plaintiff's who also relied on the presumption of due care applicable in death cases under the Pennsylvania rule. The defendant introduced no evidence.

On the facts as stated, we think the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of negligence under the Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, the learned trial judge, in the first instance, properly charged the jury and left the issue to it. Englehaupt v. Erie Railroad Co., 1904, 209 Pa. 182, 58 A. 154; Watters v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., 1913, 239 Pa. 492, 86 A. 1021. In the Englehaupt case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said, 209 Pa. at pages 185-186, 58 A. at page 155: "* * * It is likewise the duty of the carrier to announce the name of the station on the approach of the trian, and to afford passengers sufficient time to alight with safety. If after this announcement the train for any cause makes its next stop short of or beyond the station, the conductor or brakeman should announce the fact before the passengers attempt to leave the train, and a neglect to do so will be a violation of duty for which the carrier is responsible. In Weller v. London, Brighton & South Coast Railway Company, L. R. 9 C.P. 126, Brett, J., says: `Merely overshooting the platform is not negligence. But if the porter has called out the name of the station, and the engine driver has overshot the station, and the train has come to a standstill, the company's servants are guilty of negligence if they do not warn the passengers not to alight. At all events, the jury may from these facts infer negligence. If the name of the station has been called out, and the train has come to a standstill, no warning being given to the contrary, the jury may very properly say that a passenger is guilty of no want of reasonable care in getting out. He has a right to suppose that the train has reached the spot where it is intended that he shall get out.'"

This applies more especially when it is dark, as in this case, according to the Englehaupt decision.

It is true that in the case quoted there was a conductor on the platform at the time the passenger left the train. But it does not appear, as the defendant contends, that negligence may be found only where the railroad employee sees a passenger about to alight when it would be unsafe for him to do so. The Englehaupt decision makes no point of the presence of the conductor, and the language used in the opinion as well as the choice of excerpts from prior cases are broad enough to include the instant situation: e. g. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. McCormick, 1889, 124 Pa. 427, 16 A. 848. Nor do we think that...