Case Name: Bridget Walsh, Appellant, v. Hestonville, Mantua and Fairmount Passenger Railway Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1900-02-05
Citations: 194 Pa. 570
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 343
Parties: Bridget Walsh, Appellant, v. Hestonville, Mantua and Fairmount Passenger Railway Company.
Judges: Before Green, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown and Mestrezat, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 570–571

Head Matter:
Bridget Walsh, Appellant, v. Hestonville, Mantua and Fairmount Passenger Railway Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Going on track in front of moving car.
In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries, a. nonsuit is properly entered where it appears from plaintiff’s own testir mony that she saw the car on the track -in front of her, but nevertheless-attempted to cross the track and was injured by striking the side of the car by her own movement.
Argued Jan. 18, 1900.
Appeal, No. 343, Jan. T., 1899, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., June T., 1896, No. 867, refusing to take off nonsuit.
Before Green, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown and Mestrezat, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries.
At tbe trial it appeared that on March 23, 1896, about 4: 30 p. M., plaintiff was struck by a car of defendant at the intersection of Arch and Fifteenth streets in the city of Philadelphia.
Plaintiff described the accident as follows :
“ I thought he (the motorman) certainly saw me and waited for me to go across; it was snowing and I did not know how long the car might be stopped, and as I thought it was my time to go I walked across the track, and as I went to the edge of the track I saw that the car was moving, and the dasher was right in front of me and the motorman was looking right at' me, and as quick as a thought I turned on my left foot to go back and that is the last I knew.”
Biddle, P. J.: This seems to me to be a case where the woman ran into the car instead of the car running into the woman, constituting contributory negligence on her part. I will, therefore, grant a nonsuit in this case.
The court subsequently refused to take off the nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the refusal of the court to take off tne nonsuit.
February 5, 1900:
A. S. Ashbridge, Jr., for appellant,
cited Cleary v. Pittsburg, Allegheny & Manchester Traction Co., 179 Pa. 526.
Russell Duane, J. Bayard Henry and Thomas Leaming, for appellee,
were not heard, but cited in their printed: brief Hauser v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 147 Pa. 440; Rauscher v. Traction Co., 176 Pa. 849; Nugent v. Phila. Traction Co., 181 Pa. 160; Lynch v. Erie City, 151 Pa. 380.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
On the plaintiff's personal testimony it was inevitable that a judgment of nonsuit should be entered against her. She expressly said she was not in front of the car when she was injured, but that as she went to the edge of the track she saw that the car was moving and that the dasher was right in front of her. She said also that she was at the side of the car when she was struck. She could not have been struck in such a position except as a consequence of her coming in contact with the car by her voluntary act, and for such an accident of course the defendant was not responsible. The plaintiff saw the car on the track in front of her, but nevertheless she attempted to cross the track and naturally struck the side of the car by her own movement.
Judgment affirmed.