Elmer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.

Citations

• 251 Pa. 505
• 96 A. 1054
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 494

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Passengers—Crowded cars — Passenger standing on platform — Fellow servant rule — Conflicting evidence- — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. While the proper place for a passenger on a street car is on the inside, and not on the platform, and while if he remains on the platform when there is unoccupied space in the body of the car he assumes the risk incident to the position, he may excuse himself from obedience to this well established rule and occupy a place on the platform, by showing that there was no sitting or standing space on the inside of the car, and that, therefore, it was not reasonably practicable for him to enter the car, and if under such circumstances he rides on the platform with the consent of the conductor, he is entitled to the same degree of diligence as other passengers, to protect him from known and avoidable dangers.</p> <p>2. Where a passenger who remains on the platform of a street car is injured, and seeks to recover damages from the street railway company therefor, the burden is upon him to show that it was not reasonably practicable for him to go inside the car.</p> <p>3. A passenger cannot be convicted of negligence as a result of riding upon the platform of a street railway car, if the ear is so crowded that inside the door at which he attempts to enter he cannot see the unoccupied Space in the other end of the car. It is the duty of the conductor in such cases to see that the crowd moves to the farther end of the car so that passengers may enter. A passenger is not required to use force to push through a crowd in order to secure standing room in the car.</p> <p>4. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of being thrown from the rear platform of one of defendant’s cars on which he was riding, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appears that plaintiff was a track foreman in the defen