Sligo v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 224 Pa. 135
• 73 A. 211
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 742

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Passenger alighting; from car — Condition of roadway.</p> <p>1. Where a passenger in alighting from a street railway car steps into a depression caused by a gutter at the side of a country road and is injured there can be no recovery against the street railway company.</p> <p>2. When municipal consent is obtained to lay the tracks of a street railway on a public road, it becomes the duty of the railway company to conform its lines to the established grade of the highway and to adjust its operation to the conditions existing on the ground. It is under no obligation to cover a ditch constructed by the public authorities alongside of the public road upon which the tracks are laid nor to establish a platform or landing place over such a ditch.</p> <p>3. In an action against a street railway company by a woman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while alighting from a summer car, it appeared that the accident occurred on a May evening in the twilight when there was still light enough to read a newspaper. The car was an open one with a running board on either side. On one side of the track was a broad, smooth, level, macadam surface and on the other side there was a little depression in the nature of a roadside ditch used for drainage purposes. It was made by grading the roadway under municipal regulation from the traveled part of the highway to the outer side of the same and was of the general character of ditches or gutters alongside of country roads. Passengers on the street railway could alight on either side of the car and in alighting could step down on the level macadam road on one side or on the receding gutter side on the other. The plaintiff stepped off on the gutter side, and in doing so the step being a little high, she lost her balance, fell and was injured. Held, that the court committed no error in directing a verdict for the defendant company. Mahoney v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 214 Pa. 180, followed.</p> <