Shields v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 261 Pa. 422
• 104 A. 665
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 757

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Pedestrian—Stepping in front of approaching car — Danger—Speed of car — Conflicting evidence— Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. While a person has no right to pnt himself in a position of danger and rely entirely upon the assumption, that another who controls the source oí such danger will see that he is protected, yet everyone who exercises due care, according to the circumstances, has an abstract right to rely on the assumption that others will do likewise and use ordinary care to protect him and his property from injury.</p> <p>2. A pedestrian is not negligent in attempting to cross a street at a place set apart for that purpose merely because a car is approaching at a distance, although in plain sight. In such case the rights of the pedestrian and the street railway company are mutual and each is bound to exercise the care required by the circumstances.</p> <p>3. The danger a pedestrian is bound to foresee and avoid is that of being injured by cars operated in a proper and legal manner.</p> <p>4. In an action against a street railway company to recover for injuries to a pedestrian at a crossing by being struck by one of defendant’s cars, the case is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that when plaintiff started to cross the street he saw the car coming on the near track 2Y5 feet distant, and apparently slowing down; that he proceeded to cross and when on the near rail he saw the car two lengths away and still thought it was slowing down; that when he had gotten almost across he was struck, and was picked up 165 feet away, having been carried that distance on the fender of the ear; although defendant’s evidence was that the collision occurred at the point where plaintiff was picked up on the opposite side of the crossing, and that the car stopped within its length after the collision.</p>