Stevenson v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

69 A. 45, 219 Pa. 626, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 637
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 6, 1908·No. Appeal, No. 179·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff, coming to the stairway leading to tho station, found a hand rail plainly intended for the convenience and safety of persons descending. He recognized the purpose and the usefulness of the rail by taking hold of it at first, but then, finding his glove caught in some projecting points or knobs on the rail, he let go of it and took the middle of the steps although he knew they were slippery with ice. Thus, to avoid what was, at most, an inconvenience, he voluntarily encountered a manifest danger. He thus took upon himself the risk.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Stevenson v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 69 A. 45, 219 Pa. 626, 1908 Pa. LEXIS 637 (Pa. 1908).

69 A. 45 (Stevenson v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Downs v. Cammarano
218 A.2d 604 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Milburn v. Knights of Columbus Home Ass'n
76 A.2d 466 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1950)
Ward v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.
62 A.2d 97 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
14 A.2d 289 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Acton v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines
11 A.2d 203 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Berrien v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
3 A.2d 18 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Schwartz Et Ux. v. City of Phila.
157 A. 377 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Levitt v. B/G Sandwich Shops, Inc.
144 A. 71 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)