Kradel v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Railway Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 427
• 100 A. 128
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 470

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railway companies — Passengers—Intoxicated passengers — Ejection from ca/r — Death—Proximate cause.</p> <p>1. If a passenger is received upon a street car, in an intoxicated condition, which is apparent to the carrier’s employee, a higher degree of care toward him is required than in the case of a passenger in full possession of his faculties.</p> <p>2. .Where a passenger who is intoxicated is removed from a car by the carrier’s employee, and is thereafter injured, the questions whether the carrier exposed such passenger to danger, which because of his intoxication he was 'unable to guard against, and whether that exposure was the proximate cause of his injury, are usually questions for the jury; where however it cannot be said that the only reasonable reference to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant’s act was the sole and proximate cause of the injury it is error to submit the case to the jury to guess as to proximate cause.</p> <p>3. Where, in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs husband, it appeared that deceased had boarded a street car in an intoxicated condition; that, after failing to leave the ear at the proper station, deceased was removed from the car at another station by the conductor; that he started to walk home and increased his intoxication on the way by taking additional drinks; that he was familiar with the locality and indicated his knowledge of where he was going; that he an hour later left the road and started to walk upon the street railway track where he fell and was injured by an approaching car, whereby his death resulted, binding instructions should have been given for defendant.</p>