Farley v. Philad. Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 20, 1890

Farley v. Philad. Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58 (Pa. 1890)

18 A. 1090; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 768

Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

There is nothing in the plaintiff’s evidence that would have warranted the jury in rendering a verdict in his favor, and hence there was no error in entering the judgment of nonsuit, and refusing to take it off. Without some evidence, tending to prove that the injury complained of resulted from the defendant company’s negligence, the plaintiff had no right to ask that his case should be submitted to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: FRANCIS FARLEY v. PHILAD. TRACTION CO.
Cited By: 16 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. When, in an action against a passenger carrier, the evidence shows simply that an accident occurred and a passenger was injured, and the cause of the accident does not at all appear, or does not fully and clearly appear, a presumption of negligence arises against the carrier which he must overthrow by evidence satisfactory to the jury: Per Gordon, J. (C.P.) 2. If, however, the evidence as to the cause of the accident is full, clear, undoubted and uncontradicted, the rule is that such evidence must show a case clear of contributory negligence by the passenger, and must affirmatively establish negligence on the part of the carrier: Per Gordon J. (C. P.) 3. In an action against a street railway company for negligence, the plaintiff testified that while a passenger on one of defendant’s summer cars, furnished with transverse seats, he arose to signal the conductor to stop and tripped upon the sheathing of the wheel, extending above the floor but leaving ample room to enter and leave the car, and was thus injured. In such case, it was not error to enter judgment of nonsuit.