Matthews v. Pennsylvania R. R.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 18, 1892

Matthews v. Pennsylvania R. R., 148 Pa. 491 (Pa. 1892)

24 A. 67; 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1007

Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Stebrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We are of opinion that the learned judge below was fully justified in refusing to take off the nonsuit. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant company to submit to the jury. The deceased while waiting at Collins’ station for a train, and while standing on the platform, was struck by the bumper of the locomotive, causing an injury from which he subsequently died. There was nothing in the construction of the platform to make it dangerous. The accident was the result of his own negligence, in standing so near the track as to be struck by the passing engine. To submit such a case to a jury would be merely to permit them “ to rob Peter to pay Paul.”

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Matthews v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
Cited By: 3 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Mailroads — Station platform, — Negligence—Contributory negligence. At Collins station, on the line of the defendant’s railroad, there was a passenger platform flush with the tracks of the railroad, at each end of which was a smaller raised freight platform, which stood four feet away from the outer rail of the tracks. The main platform was continued into this space between the smaller platform and the tracks. There was no notice, nor was there any gate, bar or rail to prevent passengers from going into this space. It was testified that the bumper of the engine extended laterally beyond the edge of the rail about twenty inches, thus leaving a space of twenty-eight inches between the edge of the smaller platform and a passing train. Plaintiff’s husband having gone to this station for the purpose of taking a train, was standing with a companion in this narrow space, each having his back toward the train and leaning on the raised platform. Plaintiff’s husband having been notified that the train was coming, stepped around his companion, and while in the act of doing so, was struck by the approaching train, receiving injuries from which he died. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, the court entered a non-suit: Held, not to be error. There was nothing in the construction of the platform to make it dangerous, and the accident was the result of the negligence of deceased.