Court Opinion

ID: 9698050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:40:25.323233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:37.959352
License: Public Domain

*337Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell :
Plaintiffs evidence* did not establish that the motorman let her off at a place of known or obvious danger, and consequently there was no evidence of negligence. Moreover, if the motorman in the enclosed trolley car could have seen the approaching automobile, it is obvious that plaintiff, when the trolley doors were open, could easily and more readily have seen the approaching automobile before she alighted and stepped into its path. For each of these reasons I would enter a judgment in favor of Pittsburgh Railways Company, non obstante veredicto.
Mr. Justice Abnold and Mr. Justice Benjamin R. Jones join in this dissenting opinion.

 If defendant’s evidence were considered, there could not possibly be any recovery.