Monahan v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Monahan v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

27 A.2d 534, 149 Pa. Super. 283, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 366

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 5, 1942

DocketAppeals, 296 and 297

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 A.2d 534 (Monahan v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monahan v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 27 A.2d 534, 149 Pa. Super. 283, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 366 (Pa. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Kenworthey; J.,

Wife-plaintiff entered one of defendant’s street cars which started with a “sudden jolt” while she was standing still reaching for an upright pole. She was thrown on the floor, striking her back at the base of her spine, as a result of which she sustained a compression fracture of two vertebrae. There was no evidence of the effect of the action of the car on other passengers except that they became “excited” and two or three of them “bent over.” On the facts thus far stated, plaintiffs were not entitled to go to the jury. (See Coyle v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 281, 27 A. (2d) 533.

They contend the testimony of the attending physician that the injury “must have been [caused by] a most terrific force” was evidence that the accident was “inherently unusual,” and therefox*e sufficient to enable the jury to find negligence on the part of the. motorman. A similar contention was made in Hawkins et al. v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 185, 188, 22 A. (2d) 73. What we there said is controlling *285 here: “The physician’s statement about the amount of force necessary to cause a displaced knee cap, in our opinion, is of no help in determining the suddenness or speed of the start of the car. There are so many other factors involved that it is of no probative value whatever.”

Judgments are reversed and entered for defendant.

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

Opinion by

Kenworthey; J.,

Wife-plaintiff entered one of defendant’s street cars which started with a “sudden jolt” while she was standing still reaching for an upright pole. She was thrown on the floor, striking her back at the base of her spine, as a result of which she sustained a compression fracture of two vertebrae. There was no evidence of the effect of the action of the car on other passengers except that they became “excited” and two or three of them “bent over.” On the facts thus far stated, plaintiffs were not entitled to go to the jury. (See Coyle v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 281, 27 A. (2d) 533.

They contend the testimony of the attending physician that the injury “must have been [caused by] a most terrific force” was evidence that the accident was “inherently unusual,” and therefox*e sufficient to enable the jury to find negligence on the part of the. motorman. A similar contention was made in Hawkins et al. v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 185, 188, 22 A. (2d) 73. What we there said is controlling *285 here: “The physician’s statement about the amount of force necessary to cause a displaced knee cap, in our opinion, is of no help in determining the suddenness or speed of the start of the car. There are so many other factors involved that it is of no probative value whatever.”

Judgments are reversed and entered for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.2d 534, 149 Pa. Super. 283, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monahan-v-pittsburgh-railways-co-pasuperct-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack