Hoffman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 214 Pa. 87
• 63 A. 409
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 601

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Fender—Contributory negligence.</p> <p>In an action by a woman against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that at the time of the accident she was standing close to the side of a car as it backed around a curve, and as the car swung around she was struck by the fender and injured. The car was backing at the time, and the fender during this temporary movement of the car had not been raised. There was no evidence to show that it was customary or necessary to keep the fender raised at the rear end of the car. The evidence was undisputed that the plaintiff could have avoided the accident by the exercise of reasonable care. Held, that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the company, and that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.</p> <p>Negligence — Evidence—Standard of care — Province of jury.</p> <p>A jury cannot be permitted to draw inferences of negligence in the absence of evidence from which such negligence may be reasonably inferred or to hold the defendant to a higher standard of care than the law requires. The plaintiff must establish, by affirmative testimony, some negligent acts from which a jury can infer want of care. If the evidence does not show negligence there is no question for the jury to determine.</p>