Fern v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 250 Pa. 487
• 95 A. 590
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 976

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Carriers—Passenger — Passenger leaving train — Presumption of negligence — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. A presumption of negligence arises from an accident to a passenger when it is caused by a defect in the road, cars or machinery, or by want of diligence or care in those employed, or by any other thing which the company can and ought to control as a part of its duty to carry passengers safely.</p> <p>2. It is the duty of a carrier- not only to furnish safe appliances and means for the exit of passengers at their destination, but also at other points on the line of the road where they desire to leave the car. Any disarrangement or displacement of the car platform which results in injury to a passenger when alighting is presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier. .</p> <p>3. A passenger has the right to alight from either end of a railroad car and has the right to assume that there is a safe means of egress from both ends, and can be convicted of negligence only when he attempts to make his exit after he discovers, or by the exercise of proper care should have discovered, that the place is unsafe.</p> <p>4. In an action against a railroad company for injuries sustained by a passenger, it appeared that while the train was stopping at a station, plaintiff attempted to leave the end of the car which was next to the baggage car by a door which apparently had been left open by a trainman; that he put his hand against the railing or side of the vestibule and moved his foot forward to what he supposed was the offset leading to the first step, but that the trapdoor covering the steps had not been raised, whereby plaintiff fell, suffering the injuries complained of; there was evidence that there was no light in the vestibule, that the trapdoor could not be seen because of the darkness and that plaintiff’s eyes were blinded by the arc lights from the station platform. Held, that the door which plaintiff had used to leave the train was