Case Name: Miller, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1901-04-01
Citations: 198 Pa. 639
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 253
Parties: Miller, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company.
Judges: Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 198
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Miller, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company.
Negligence—Street railways—Infant—Nonsuit.
In an action by a boy eleven years old against a street railway to recover damages for personal injuries, a nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence shows that the plaintiff after turning a corner proceeded on the sidewalk about eighteen or twenty feet when he suddenly left the sidewalk and ran diagonally into the street in such a manner as to come in contact with the side of a car near its front end, or between the fender and the front step.
Argued Jan. 31, 1901.
Appeal, No. 253, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1899, No. 783, refusing to take off nonsuit, in case of WyattS. Miller, a minor, and Robert G. Miller, his father, v. Union Traction Company.
Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Biddle, P. J.
At the trial it appeared that on October 10, 1899, plaintiff, then a boy about eleven years of age, in going home from school, walked east on the north side of Filbert street and turned north on Thirty-eighth street, and when he had gone about the length of a pavement or some eighteen or twenty feet, turned suddenly and ran diagonally into the street in such a manner as to come in contact with the side of a passing car near its front end, or between the fender and front steps.
The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
William C. Gross, for appellants.
Thomas Learning, with him Russell Duane, for appellee.
April 1, 1901:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The testimony in this ease did not warrant a charge of negligence against the defendant company, and therefore the court below did not err in entering the nonsuit and refusing to take it off. A reference to the testimony and to the decisions of this court in the following cases will show that the plaintiff's claim had nothing tangible to support it: Smith v. O'Connor, 48 Pa. 218; Hestonville, etc., Pass. Railroad Co. v. Kelley, 102 Pa. 115; Chilton v. Central Traction Co., 152 Pa. 425; Funk v. Electric Traction Co., 175 Pa. 559; Kline v. Electric Traction Co., 181 Pa. 276; Gould v. Union Traction Co., 190 Pa. 198; Fletcher v. Scranton Traction Co., 185 Pa. 147.
Judgment affirmed.