Ervin v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 236 Pa. 530
• 84 A. 966
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 791

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Blind men — Collision with street car — Contributory negligence.</p> <p>1. In an action by a blind man against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a collision •with a street car at a crossing, a verdict and judgment for the defendant will be sustained, where the plaintiff testified that he did not hear the car when he started across the street, and the motorman testified that as he approached the crossing at slow speed he saw plaintiff standing in the roadway near the curb apparently looking towards the car, that he did not know plaintiff was blind, that when the car was about its own length from him, plaintiff started swiftly across the street in front of it, that the witness put on his brake hard, but the fender struck plaintiff’s leg just as he was clearing the track, and that the car only ran about three feet after it came in contact with plaintiff.</p> <p>2. In such a ease the trial judge cannot be charged with error in saying to the jury that he saw nothing in the testimony to indicate that the car in question ran at an unusual rate of speed; nor was it error fo'r the court to say that if the plaintiff had been a person with normal eyesight his action would, under the law, have been probably considered contributory negligence; nor was it error to say that it was the duty of plaintiff even though not able to see to exercise as much care as possible for his own protection under the circumstances.</p> <p>3. An ordinance is properly rejected where its subject matter does not appear, and its relevancy to the issue being tried is not made apparent.</p>