Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Edelstein
Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Edelstein
Opinion of the Court
We were asked by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error not to reverse this case unless we could do so without a new venire, for the manifest reason that another jury might, and probably would, increase the damages. We do not see our way clear, however, to reverse it at all. It was a case for the jury. When the announcement was made by the conductor that the next stoppage of the train would be at Jenkintown, the plaintiff below, who was a passenger, had a right to suppose, when the train stopped shortly thereafter, and some one called out “ Jenkintown,” that it had reached that station. In point of fact, the train had been signalled and stopped short of the station. No notice was given to the passengers that the train had not reached the station, nor was there any caution to remain in their seats. The plaintiff got off hurriedly, he thought the train had reached the station; it was a dark rainy night and freezing; when he stepped down he fell into a creek and was injured. We might perhaps think the plaintiff was not as careful as he should have been; the fact is possibly so ; but that was for the jury, and they have found in his favor. It was properly submitted, and the judgment is therefore
Affirmed. A. B. W.
Cf. P. W. & B. R. R. v. McCormick, decided Feb. 25, 1889.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co. v. Edelstein
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- In an action for damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, a railroad, the plaintiff testified that, on a dark night, he entered a passenger train of defendant, taking the front oar and occupying a seat near the front door; and that after the train left G-lenside, some one called out “ The next station is Jenkintownthat the train then went on, and afterward came to a stop, and that some one out of the baggage-car, a person dressed like a conductor, called out11 Jenkintown;” that he then alighted from the train at the front platform, and while in the act of stepping down, placing one foot upon the ground and then stepping with the other foot, he fell down through a bridge. He further testified that he went out of the ear in a great hurry, that he “ rushed out of the door and off the steps; and did not see the station or any lights.” He also testified that he had only been to Jenkintown once before, and that in the daytime. The defendant offered evidence to prove that the train was stopped before reaching the station on account of an accident to another train and that passengers were told to remain seated. The court submitted the question of negligence and of contributory negligence to the jury, charging that it was for the jury to determine whether it was contributory negligence for the plaintiff to step off the platform on a dark night without seeing that there was a station there. Held not to he error.