Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

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

Negligence — Street railways — Passenger — Jerk of car.

A passenger on a street railway car cannot recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a sudden jerk of the car, causing her to fall while standing with a suit case in her hand, and paying her fare, where it appears that no other passenger was injured, and that no evidence was offered to describe the attending circumstances, or to prove an improper manipulation of the car.

Submitted May 3, 1926.

PER CURIAM, May 26, 1926:

The court below directed a verdict for defendant, judgment was entered thereon, and plaintiffs have appealed.

Anna Harkins, wife of the other plaintiff, Philip S. Harkins, testified that she was a passenger on one of defendant's street cars; she arose to pay her fare, handed the conductor a dollar, and, while waiting for change, the car stopped with a jerk and she was thrown and injured. There is nothing in the evidence to show that any other passenger was affected by the alleged jerk of the car; in fact, no effort was made by plaintiff to describe the attending circumstances, to prove improper manipulation of the car, or so to picture, or describe, the stop and its effect on others in the car as to enable the jury to form an independent judgment concerning its alleged unusual and extraordinary nature. Trolley cars often stop with a jerk under ordinary circumstances. All we have here is a woman standing in a moving car with a suit case in her hand, testimony that the car stopped with a jerk and she fell, afterward discovering that her knee was hurt and her shoe damaged; this is not enough to establish negligent operation of the car: see Uffelman v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 253 Pa. 394; Zieger v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 84 Pa. Super. 541.

The judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HARKINS ET UX. v. PHILA. RAPID T. CO
(May 26, 1926)