Killeen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Killeen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

112 A. 911, 270 Pa. 123, 1921 Pa. LEXIS 338

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 21, 1921

DocketAppeal, No. 310

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A. 911 (Killeen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Killeen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, 112 A. 911, 270 Pa. 123, 1921 Pa. LEXIS 338 (Pa. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On the evening of January 12, 1917, plaintiff, while walking through the aisle of one of defendant’s cars, on which he was a passenger, fell and was injured. The gravamen of his complaint is that as the car was not lighted he tripped over some unknown obstruction, suffered to remain in the aisle. The case was submitted to the jury, who found for defendant. The only errors assigned by appellant (plaintiff) relate to the charge of the trial judge. As plaintiff submitted no requests and remained silent when the trial judge asked if anything had been omitted from or misstated in the charge, he cannot now raise minor objections thereto, and we find no substantial ground of complaint. The charge adequately covered the case and it was not error to instruct the jury, in effect, that the allegata and probata must agree. Appellant’s complaint was that he was injured by falling over an obstruction in the aisle, which the darkness prevented him from seeing, and the weakness of his case was lack of evidence to show such obstruction. Possibly he might have averred his fall as the [125]*125result of the darkness; but as he chose to base it upon an obstruction in the aisle, it was not error to charge the jury that the burden was upon him to prove the existence thereof.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

On the evening of January 12, 1917, plaintiff, while walking through the aisle of one of defendant’s cars, on which he was a passenger, fell and was injured. The gravamen of his complaint is that as the car was not lighted he tripped over some unknown obstruction, suffered to remain in the aisle. The case was submitted to the jury, who found for defendant. The only errors assigned by appellant (plaintiff) relate to the charge of the trial judge. As plaintiff submitted no requests and remained silent when the trial judge asked if anything had been omitted from or misstated in the charge, he cannot now raise minor objections thereto, and we find no substantial ground of complaint. The charge adequately covered the case and it was not error to instruct the jury, in effect, that the allegata and probata must agree. Appellant’s complaint was that he was injured by falling over an obstruction in the aisle, which the darkness prevented him from seeing, and the weakness of his case was lack of evidence to show such obstruction. Possibly he might have averred his fall as the [125]*125result of the darkness; but as he chose to base it upon an obstruction in the aisle, it was not error to charge the jury that the burden was upon him to prove the existence thereof.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A. 911, 270 Pa. 123, 1921 Pa. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/killeen-v-delaware-lackawanna-western-railroad-pa-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack