Bickley v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 369
• 101 A. 654
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 746

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Carriers—Passengers—Injury to passengers — Passenger hoarding train — Presumption of negligence — Burden of proof — Proof of employment — Contributory negligence.</p> <p>1. A carrier of passengers, having impliedly invited the public to enter its cars, is required to exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in protecting them while they are in the act of ascending the steps and going into the body of the car.</p> <p>2. When an injury to a passenger on a railroad train is caused by a defect in the shed, cars, or any other appliance, or by the lack of diligence or care in the carrier or its employees, or by any other thing which the carrier can and ought to control as part of its duty to carry passengers safely, a legal presumption of negligence arises casting upon the carrier the onus of disproving it.</p> <p>3. In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff on the steps of a railroad car, it appeared that plaintiff had a mileage book and intended to take a train at defendant’s station ; that she was admitted through the gates leading to the station platform and as she ascended the steps of. a ear, belonging-to the train which she desired to take, she saw a man dressed in overalls standing on the car platform working at the ceiling of the car; that when she reached the step below the platform she received a heavy blow on the right side of her head, and the workman said, “oh, excuse me, I didn’t see you coming up the steps,” and took her arm and placed her in the car; that plaintiff suffered permanent injuries as a result of the blow. Defendant contended that there was no evidence to show that the blow had been caused by the workman, or that the workman was in defendant’s employ, and further contended that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in entering a car where she saw a workman engaged in work. The trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit, which the court in banc subsequently refused to take off.