Barry v. Union Traction Co.

45 A. 321, 194 Pa. 576, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 444
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 5, 1900·No. Appeal, No. 344·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff did not get off the car at Fourth street, and it was not there that the accident occurred for which this action was brought. He says that he had articles in both hands, and that he stood with one foot on the lower step and one on the platform while passing from Fourth street to Third street, and that, while in this position, and crowded between two men, he fell from the car while it was passing in its mere ordinary motion. He was asked, “ Q„ The car proceeding in the usual way and jolting as it went over Third street ? A, Yes, sir. Q. It was [578] the usual progress of the car as it crossed another street, over a railroad track? A. Yes, sir, a jolt.” Of course there was no proof of any negligence in this on the part of the defendant, and the court very properly entered a compulsory nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barry v. Union Traction Co., 45 A. 321, 194 Pa. 576, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 444 (Pa. 1900).

45 A. 321 (Barry v. Union Traction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rice v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
63 A. 419 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)