Snowden v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Snowden v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

84 A. 591, 236 Pa. 52, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 709

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 8, 1912

DocketAppeal, No. 365

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A. 591 (Snowden v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) 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

Snowden v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 84 A. 591, 236 Pa. 52, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 709 (Pa. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action was by children to recover the loss occasioned by the death of their mother, alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of the defendant’s car. The only question raised by the assignments of error is whether the case should have been withdrawn from the jury. There was testimony tending to show that as the car approached a regular stopping place, and was running very slowly, it was suddenly halted and then suddenly started forward on a curve, throwing the deceased to the platform and from the platform to the street. The pivotal question of fact was whether she was standing within the body of the car or had stepped from the front doorway to the platform. This question was submitted to the jury with the clear and distinct instruction that if she had stepped to the platform while the car was in motion there could be no recovery. Since there was testimony that would justify a finding that she was standing within the body of the car and was thrown from her position by a violent and unusual motion of the car, the case was for the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This action was by children to recover the loss occasioned by the death of their mother, alleged to have been caused by the negligent operation of the defendant’s car. The only question raised by the assignments of error is whether the case should have been withdrawn from the jury. There was testimony tending to show that as the car approached a regular stopping place, and was running very slowly, it was suddenly halted and then suddenly started forward on a curve, throwing the deceased to the platform and from the platform to the street. The pivotal question of fact was whether she was standing within the body of the car or had stepped from the front doorway to the platform. This question was submitted to the jury with the clear and distinct instruction that if she had stepped to the platform while the car was in motion there could be no recovery. Since there was testimony that would justify a finding that she was standing within the body of the car and was thrown from her position by a violent and unusual motion of the car, the case was for the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A. 591, 236 Pa. 52, 1912 Pa. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowden-v-philadelphia-rapid-transit-co-pa-1912.