Fisher v. Paxson

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 11, 1897

Fisher v. Paxson, 182 Pa. 457 (Pa. 1897)

38 A. 407; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 830

Dean, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,

We are far from being convinced that there is any error in the ruling complained of in the first specification. The question propounded to the witness was irrelevant, and the evidence sought to be elicited thereby was rightly rejected as incompetent and immaterial. There is nothing in the question presented that requires discussion.

*463The two remaining specifications relate to the compulsory nonsuit and refusal of the court to take it off. A careful consideration of the testimony sent up with the record has satisfied us that the case is not one that should have been submitted to tire jury. While the accident which unfortunately befell the plaintiff is greatly to be regretted, we find nothing in the evidence that tends to prove, or would have warranted the jury in finding that it was due to any negligence of the defendants or their employees.

A review of the evidence, for the' purpose of fortifying this conclusion, would serve no useful purpose. The rulings of the court below are so well sustained by the opinion of its learned president, that further elaboration is wholly unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Jacob Fisher v. Edward M. Paxson, Joseph F. Harris and John Lowber Welsh, Receivers of The Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence — Railroads—Passengers. In an action by a passenger against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries caused by falling into a culvert while walking upon the tracks after alighting from a train, evidence that the culvert was repaired after the accident is irrelevant and inadmissible, where there is nothing to show that the railroad company failed in any duty to the passenger while he was alighting from the train. A nonsuit is properly entered in a case by a passenger against a railroad company for personal injuries where it appears that the plaintiff fell asleep and was carried past the station where he intended to alight; that at the next stop, on the suggestion of the conductor, but without any compulsion, or demand upon him for additional fare, he alighted from the train in a city with which he was familiar, and started to walk between the tracks, and, after going some distance, fell into a culvert and was injured.