Rogers v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 260 Pa. 430
• 103 A. 873
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 541

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroad companies — Pullman cars — Pullman employees — Liability of railroad company for negligence of Pullman employee — Passenger—Stepping from car.</p> <p>1. The law will uot permit a railroad company engaged in the business of carrying persons for hire, through any device or arrangement with a sleeping car company, whose cars are used by the railroad company and constitute a part of its train, to avoid the duty of providing proper means for the safe conveyance of those whom it has agreed to carry.</p> <p>2. A railroad company is answerable for the negligence of a Pullman employee, resulting in injury to a passenger, although such employee was not in the employ of the railroad company, in the absence of any knowledge by the passenger that the Pullman car was not under the management of the railroad company, and it is not material that the Pullman car was managed by the Pullman company under an independent contract with the railroad company. A passenger may assume, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that the whole train is under one management.</p> <p>3. Where in an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries sustained by a passenger who was attempting to alight from a Pullman car at a regular station, after the train had come to a full stop, it appeared that the night was dark and that the porter of the car had failed to have a stool at the foot of the car steps to enable plaintiff to dismount in safety, although stools were usually placed at the foot of the steps of such cars to take the place of a lower step, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff could not recover because the porter was the employee of the Pullman company and not of the railroad company, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, was without merit. The ease should have been submitted to the jury and the entry of a nonsuit was error.</p>