Sandford v. Hestonville etc. R.

Citations

• 136 Pa. 84
• 26 W.N.C. 401
• 20 A. 799
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1015

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not of itself negligence, either on the part of the passenger or on the part of a street-railway company, that an adult, or a person reasonably competent to take care of himself, should occupy by permission a platform of a crowded passenger ear: West Phila. etc. Ry. Co. v. Gallagher, 108 Pa. 524.</p> <p>2. The carrier, however, is bound to higher care and vigilance, when the platform is crowded, in proportion as that place is more dangerous than a seat inside the car; and, in case of injury, this fact, with all the circumstances, will be considered in determining the carrier’s responsibility: Crissey v. Railway Co., 75 Pa. 83.</p> <p>3. In the case of a passenger, obviously incompetent, from extreme youth or other cause, to exercise proper judgment or discretion for his own safety, it is the conductor’s duty to exercise the highest degree of vigilance for the passenger’s safety consistent with the discharge of his ordinary duties: Pittsb. etc. Ry. Co. v. Caldwell, 74 Pa. 421; Phila. etc. Ry. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. 367.</p> <p>4. Where a boy of eight years, without the knowledge of the conductor, pushed through a crowded car to the front platform, where he was found by the conductor, when taking up fares, and was immediately thereafter injured without fault on the part of the company’s employees, it was error to submit the question of defendant company’s negligence to the jury.</p> <p>5. Although a plaintiff in a cause may not be absolutely concluded by his own testimony as a witness, yet, when he has testified in a circumstantial manner as to a fact peculiarly within his knowledge, and which, if believed, would prevent «his recovery, his testimony should not be ignored on the ground that he may have been mistaken.</p>