Miller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 231 Pa. 627
• 80 A. 1108
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 898

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Summer car — Standing on running board — Contributory negligence.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband killed by falling from the running board of a summer car, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence tends to show that the deceased was either thrown from the car by its rapid motion when it entered a switch, or that he was knocked off by striking a standing car on the main track; that the track and switch were so jiear each other that there were but twenty-eight inches between the sides of the cars and but two inches between the running boards; that the car started as soon as the deceased stepped on the running board, and that he fell within eight or ten seconds after-wards, while he was endeavoring to get into the car, which was crowded with passengers.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Remarks of counsel — Continuance.</p> <p>2. On the trial of an accident case against a street railway company, a witness for the plaintiff was charged with having made false statements to the defendant’s employees in order to obtain information from them and to secure an opportunity to make measurements. Plaintiff’s counsel in his address to the jury used these words: “We had to go to the enemy’s camp to get the evidence; to get justice from this powerful, wealthy and rich corporation.” The trial judge warned the jurors against letting these words have any prejudicial effect upon their minds. Held, that there was no error in refusing to withdraw a juror and continue the case under the circumstances.</p>