Case ID: pa_231/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

White, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
    
      Negligence — Street railways — Passengers—Car in motion — Case for jury.
    
    In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries the case is for the jury where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the plaintiff was thrown by the starting of a car, as she was in the act of alighting, or whether she stepped from the car when it was in motion.
    Argued Jan. 19, 1911.
    Appeal, No. 196, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 4,458, on verdict for defendant in case of William P. White and Annie McKean White, his wife, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
    March 20, 1911.
    Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Sulzberger, J.
    At the trial the evidence was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was thrown by the starting of a car as she was alighting, or whether she stepped from a car when it was in motion.
    Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon.
    
      Errors assigned were various portions of the charge.
    
      Leo MacFarland, for appellants.
    
      Thomas Learning, with him D. J. Shern, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The right to a recovery in this case, depended on whether the plaintiff, who was injured, was thrown by the starting of a car, as she was in the act of alighting, or whether she stepped from the car when it was in motion. This was a question of fact for the jury, and it was properly submitted.

The judgment is affirmed.