Case Name: Sligo, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1909-03-16
Citations: 224 Pa. 135
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 274
Parties: Sligo, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
Judges: Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 224
Pages: 135–144

Head Matter:
Sligo, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Passenger alighting; from car — Condition of roadway.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Justice Mestrezat dissents.
Argued Jan. 19, 1909.
Appeal, No. 274, Jan. T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1905, No. 3,858, on verdict for defendant in case of George D. Sligo and Florence Sligo, his wife, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ferguson, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
Thos. J. Duff, with him H. B. Painter, for appellants.—
There is no difference in the duty owing by carriers of passengers by horse railroad and by steam. Passenger carriers bind themselves to carry safely those whom they take into their coaches as far as human care and foresight will go; that is, to the care and diligence of a very cautious person: Wynn v. Central Park, etc., R. R. Co., 38 N. Y. St. Repr. 181 (14 N. Y. Supp. 172); Poulin v. Broadway, etc., R. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 621.
It,is the duty of a street railway company to stop its cars at suitable places for passengers to leave them and remain stationary long enough to enable them to do so safely: Jagger v. People’s St. Ry. Co., 180 Pa. 436; Crissey v. Hestonville, etc., Pass. Ry. Co., 75 Pa. 83; Philadelphia City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. 367; Del., Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. Napheys, 90 Pa. 135; Meier v. Railroad Co., 64 Pa. 225.
"The question of contributory negligence, and negligence where 'there'"i's conflicting testimony, is always a matter for the jury: Crissey v. Hestonville, etc., Pass. Ry. Co., 75 Pa. 83; Wilson v. Railroad Co., 177 Pa. 503; Baker v. Irish, 172 Pa. 528.
It is further submitted that while there may be a difference between street and steam railway arising from the lack of control which a street railway has over the street which would differentiate it in regard to an absolutely safe landing for its passengers, yet it is required to select its point of discharging passengers with the highest degree of care; and further, that with a knowledge of the defects of the road on which it agrees to carry the passengers it must take every precaution to select proper stopping places and must be held to have contracted to carry the passenger with a full knowledge of the govern ment of the road and the defects and dangers thereof, and is therefore responsible: Peters v. Rylands, 20 Pa. 497; Rauch v. Lloyd & Hill, 31 Pa. 358; Richmond City Ry. Co. v. Scott, 86 Va. 902; s. c. 11 S. E. Repr. 404; Farish v. Reigle, 11 Gratt. 697; N. Y., P. & N. R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 85 Va. 939 (9 S. E. Repr. 321); Cartwright v. Ry. Co., 52 Mich. 606 (18 N. W. Repr. 380); Terre Haute, etc., Ry. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346; McGee v. Ry. Co., 92 Mo. 208 (4S. W. Repr. 739); Maverich v. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 378; Citizens’ Street Ry. Co. v. Twiname, 111 Ind. 587 (13 N. E. Repr. 55); Smith v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 1 (18 N. W. Repr. 827); Topeka City Ry. Co. v. Higgs, 38 Kan. 375 (16 Pac. Repr. 667); City, etc., Ry. Co. v. Findley, 76 Ga. 311; Barrett v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628; Hill v. Ninth Ave. Ry. Co., 109 N. Y. 239 (16 N. E. Repr. 61).
March 16, 1909:
Thomas Learning, with him Chester N. Farr, Jr., for appellee. —
If it was so dark immediately after sunset that the planks were totally invisible then the plaintiff cannot charge the defendant with negligence in failing to perceive that the car was not precisely opposite them and yet escape the consequences of contributory negligence: Patton v. Traction Co., 132 Pa. 76.
The decision which, upon facts exactly parallel in the minutest particular, rales this case, is Mahoney v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 214 Pa. 180.
That defendant is not responsible for the peculiarities of the road upon which a passenger alights from a street car, was decided by this court in Keater v. Scranton Traction Co., 191 Pa. 102; Scanlon v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 208 Pa. 195; Bland v. Ry. Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 93.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mb.. Justice Elkin,
The learned trial judge submitted this case to the jury which after long deliberation reported a disagreement, whereupon a verdict for defendant was directed and judgment entered thereon. It is clear as indicated by the course of the trial that the learned court in the first instance entertained some doubt as to the liability of the defendant, but after more mature deliberation concluded that there could be no recovery under the facts and the rules of law applicable thereto. The accident occurred on the Old York road upon which is laid a street railway line with the consent of the municipality. This road is of the general character of a country highway with the usual ditches, banks, crossings, drains and culverts necessary or convenient to the maintenance of such a highway. At the point where Eckard avenue intersects with York road a somewhat temporary sort of bridge made of planks had been constructed over the gutter, thus affording a passageway for vehicles and travelers using the highways. The street railway had nothing to do with the construction or maintenance of the highways or the so-called bridge in question. It happened that the avenue was wider than the bridge was long, but the public authorities were responsible for this situation and it was not either the right or the duty of the street railway company to exercise any control over the highways, nor did the burden rest upon it to furnish a different kind of bridge, or platform or landing place at that point. When municipal consent was obtained to lay the tracks of the street railway upon the public road, it became the duty of the railway company to conform its line to the established grade of the highway and to adjust its operation to the conditions existing on the ground. This eliminates from the case all questions as to the construction of said approaches or places to alight. No such duty rested upon the appellee company at the point of accident. As to the questions whether the car was stopped at a proper place, and whether notice should have been given the passenger before alighting we agree that the case at bar is ruled by Mahoney v. Rapid Transit Company, 214 Pa. 180. The cases are almost parallel in their facts and to distinguish them in principle would require a refinement too technical to have, any force in the practical application of the law. The injured passenger was riding in an open summer car 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. In the present case the complaining passenger stepped off on the gutter side and in so doing the step being a little high, she lost her balance and fell, thus receiving the injuries for which damages are sought to be recovered in this action. The accident occurred on a May evening, in the twilight. The weight of evidence shows that it occurred from 7 to 7:15 o'clock in the evening, although the injured lady said it was later. The car had not yet been lighted and one of the witnesses testified it was light enough to read a newspaper. Under these circumstances, we think, this case is squarely ruled by the Mahoney case above cited.
Judgment affirmed.