Gilmore v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 253 Pa. 543
• 98 A. 698
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 887

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Wagon—Collision— Contributory negligence — Case for jury — Damages—Measure of damages — Profits of business — Services of minor son — Evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a right angle collision at midnight between a one-horse wagon driven by plaintiff and one of defendant’s cars, the case is for the jury and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where plaintiff testified that just before attempting to cross the track on which he was struck he looked in the direction from which the car came, and saw it about 300 feet away, that his horse was at the time walking at the rate of two and a half miles an hour, that the car approached at a terrific speed and struck the wagon on the rear of the hub of the front wheel, throwing plaintiff out and causing the injuries complained of.</p> <p>2. In such case where plaintiff’s testimony as to the points where he looked before going on the track was slightly confused, his reiterations that he made an observation a few feet from the track on which he was struck, justifies a finding that he looked immediately before driving upon the track.</p> <p>3. In such case defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s testimony presented a mathematical impossibility cannot be sustained where plaintiff testified that the car was “about” at certain points, that it was midnight when the accident occurred, that the car approached with glaring headlights and at a minimum speed of 25 miles an hour, so that it was not possible that the plaintiff could have Seen to a nicety just where the car was at any given time.</p> <p>4. In an action brought by a man who is in business for himself to recover damages for personal injuries, the measure of damages is the expense plaintiff was put to in his business, if any, and it is proper for the court to charge that if before the accident plaintiff had employed a helper at a certain a