Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Martin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
Opinion of the Court
This was an action of trespass in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for an injury he alleged he received while in the service of the defendant company and through its negligence. Having presented on the trial all of the testimony which he deemed important and pertinent, he rested his case, and he was then met by a motion from the defendant’s counsel for a nonsuit which the court below allowed, and which upon careful consideration he refused to take off. The only ques
We have carefully examined and considered all the testimony presented and relied on by the plaintiff in connection with the elaborate and satisfactory opinion of the court below, and our conclusion is that no error was committed in the allowance of the nonsuit or the refusal to take it off.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Martin v. Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence—Railroads—Government mail agent. In an action by a government mail agent against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries by being thrown out of the open door of a mail car, a nonsuit is properly entered, where it appears that prior to the accident plaintiff attempted to adjusta safety bar across the open doorway, but found it fast in its socket so that he could not move it with his hands, or kick it loose, but could have moved it with an instrurnent, but made no attempt to do so, and that he could have performed his work if he had closed the lower section of the door.