Wolf v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 252 Pa. 448
• 97 A. 684
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 637

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Pedestrian—Contributory negligence — Judgment for defendant n. o. v.</p> <p>1. Tbe suggestion that a street car was running at a reckless speed at the time it struck a pedestrian, is rebutted by the fact that it stopped within ten feet after the accident.</p> <p>2. One who voluntarily subjects himself to manifest danger cannot complain because others fail to exercise such a degree of care as to save him from harm.</p> <p>3. In an action by a pedestrian against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by being struck by one of defendant’s cars, judgment was properly entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto where there was no evidence that the ear was moving at a reckless speed, and it appeared that the car stopped within ten feet after the collision and that plaintiff had seen the car and voluntarily passed in front of it when it was so near as to strike him before he could step across the tracks.</p>