Doud v. Hines

Citations

• 269 Pa. 182
• 112 A. 528
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 534

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Passengers—Presumption from accident —Res ipsa loquitur — Sinking of roadbed — Change of temperature —Duty to foresee — Charge of court — Preponderance of evidence.</p> <p>1. On an appeal from a judgment secured by a passenger against a railroad for personal injuries, an isolated portion of the charge is no ground for reversal, where the language of the charge as a whole could not have been construed by the jury as placing a greater burden on defendant than was already fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court.</p> <p>2. In such case, it is not error to charge that the burden is on defendant to overcome the presumption of negligence, arising from the accident, by a “preponderance of the evidence.”</p> <p>3. Where the accident is alleged by defendant to have been due to a sinking of the roadbed, and testimony is offered to §how that the condition was brought about by an extraordinary change of temperature, the court commits no error in refusing to charge that if the jury believed such testimony, the verdict should be for defendant. It is for the jury to say whether defendant should have foreseen such change in temperature.</p>