Church v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R.

Citations

• 250 Pa. 21
• 95 A. 341

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Trials—Evidence—Conflicting evidence —Instructions on the weight of the evidence.</p> <p>1. Exceptional cases arise where it is the duty of the trial judge to express his opinion of the facts and guide the minds of the jury to a correct view of the evidence, and when he does so without misleading or controlling the jury in the disposition of the facts, there is no ground for reversal.</p> <p>2. On the third trial of an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while alighting from a train, where plaintiff and another witness testified- that the plaintiff was in the act of alighting when the train suddenly started without signal, and plaintiff was thereby thrown to the ground and injured; but eleven witnesses, eight of whom were disinterested, testified that the train was moving when the plaintiff passed from the car to the platform, and plaintiff’s testimony was further contradicted by her own testimony on a previous trial, the court did not err in calling the jury’s attention to the fact that plaintiff's evidence was overwhelmingly contradicted by that of the defendant, and to the further fact that plaintiff was an interested witness.</p>