Baron v. Wilkes-Barre Railway Co.

Citations

• 71 Pa. Super. 103
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 40

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Alighting from car — Presumption.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company by a passenger to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from a car at a usual stopping place in an unsafe and dangerous condition, no presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant arises from the mere happening of the accident, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove negligence and an instruction to the contrary is reversible error.</p> <p>2. Where a plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries testifies that two hours before the accident she had boarded a car which she had difficulty in mounting because of its height from the ground and, returning two hours later upon another car to the same place where she had entered the first car, while attempting to alight alone, without asking assistance, she stepped into a hole and was injured, and the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that “if it was light enough for plaintiff, in the exercise of usual and ordinary care, to have seen the condition of the ground where she attempted to alight, and notwithstanding she stepped into a hole, she would then be guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover in this ease,” the refusal to give such instructions is reversible error.</p> <p>3. It is not negligence for the employees of a street railway company to fail to volunteer to assist a passenger to alight when owing .to her physical peculiarities she knew that she needed assistance but failed to request the same.</p>