Plaintiff was injured while attempting to alight from the back platform of a street car. He testified that he notified the conductor to stop about the middle of the square; that the conductor pulled the bell, and the car slowed up; that plaintiff stepped down on the lower step; and that just as the plaintiff was about to step to the ground there was a sudden jerk, caused by the increased speed of the car, and plaintiff was thrown off and injured.

It was held that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence and defendant's negligence was for the jury.55

Where a passenger on a summer car testifies that when the car stopped at a point where he was to be transferred to another line, he gathered up some tools and started to leave the car, and when he reached the foot-board and was about to step off, the car gave a jerk or jolt, and he was thrown off and injured, the case is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained.56

The conductor of a street railway car caused his car to come to a stop and after the plaintiff had alighted and was upon the sidewalk got off and handed the plaintiff his box of tools, and then gave the signal for the car to proceed. The car was rounding a curve, and while going around, the part of the car which extended a few inches over the curb upon the sidewalk, struck the plaintiff, who was stooping, from behind and caused him to fall forward. It was held that the case was for the jury.57

A woman passenger after alighting from the front platform of a car and taking a few steps fell and was injured. At the place where the accident occurred the defendant company was reconstructing its tracks with a view of changing the mode of operating its car from a cable line to an electric line. The plaintiff on reaching this point was requested by the motorman, who opened the front door of the car, to leave the car from the front platform, in order to be transferred to another car, which stood upon the track some distance ahead. She testified that she followed his direction and descended to the

55 Mitchell v. Electric Traction Co., 12 Super. Ct. 472 (1900.)

56 Smith v. Easton Transit Co., 167 Pa. 209 (1895.)

57 Twaddell v. Chester Trac. Co., 6 Del. 399 (1896.)

ground from the steps of the front platform; that the ground was broken and the night dark and that within a very few steps she caught her foot in some way and fell to the ground and was injured. It was held that the case was for the jury.58

Plaintiff was injured in attempting to alight from an open summer car with transverse seats. It appeared from the plaintiff's testimony that when he was about one hundred feet from the crossing where he wished to get off, he arose, turned toward the back platform, raised his hand as a signal and called to the conductor to stop at the next street. The conductor pulled the bell and as the speed slackened while the car was crossing the street, the plaintiff stepped to the side and stood with one foot on the car and the other on the running board. When he observed that the car was not stopping on the north side of the street he withdrew his foot from the running board to the body of the car and again signaled the conductor to stop. The conductor then again pulled the bell and the speed was slackened until the car came almost to a stop, and it was then suddenly accelerated, giving the car a jerk which threw the plaintiff, who was standing on the body of the car, and holding firmly to the vertical hand-rail, to the street. It was held that the case was for the jury.59

Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars which lost its power of traction. Visick, who was employed by the defendant's at their car barn as a blacksmith and shifter of cars, went to the assistance of the motorman, and after assisting him, went on foot to the car barn, got out an empty car and went to the relief of the stalled car. In descending the grade towards the car, Visick lost control of the car, and a collision ensued in which plaintiff was injured. Defendant contended that the plaintiff contributed to her injury by her negligence in jumping from the car.

The court held that where a passenger in a moment of sudden peril jumps from a car and is injured, the act of jumping attended under such circumstances, although possibly not the part of wisdom, is not to be judged by the same standard as acts done where no sudden danger threatens, and it was not

58 Sowash v. Consolidated Traction Co., 188 Pa. 618 (1898.) 59 Sweeney v. Union Traction Co., 199 Pa. 293 (1901.)

error for the court to refuse to hold that the plaintiff cannot hold the defendant company liable, as the question of the company's liability for the accident was for the jury.60

Evidence.

240. The fact that a street railway company ran two cars toward each other on the same track is not evidence of negligence. 61

Plaintiff's head was slightly bruised and his eye blacked while riding as a passenger on one of defendant's cars. He walked home complaining of feeling tired and felt worse the next day; the next day after he was feverish with pain in his head; and to these complications on the next and succeeding day were added restlessness, swelling in the throat and wandering of the mind. Plaintiff died on the sixth day after the accident. At the time of the accident plaintiff was suffering from blood poisoning, complicated with Bright's disease. The court directed a verdict for defendant, as the evidence did not show that plaintiff's death was necessarily the result of the accident.62

If a motorman of an electric car, after an explosion of the controller, when he is in no danger, abandons his post on the front platform of a crowded summer car, and jumps over the back of the front seat among the passengers, causing an injury to one of the passengers who was injured in the panic which followed, it is for the jury to determine whether the act was not negligent, and such as to reasonably cause the passengers to believe they were in imminent danger.63

It is the duty of a street car driver to look out for obstructions, whether persons or vehicles, on the track. He may, however, in the performance of this duty ascertain from the person on the side of the street by looking at him, whether he desires to take passage; and in doing this he may for an instant turn his face to the sidewalk, and it does not necessarily follow from this that he is guilty of negligence.64

60 Quinn v. Shamokin & Mount Carmel Elec. Ry., 7 Super. Ct. 19 (1898.)

61 Palmer v. Warren Str. Ry., 206 Pa. 574 (1903.)

62 Bruns v. Union Traction Co., 185 Pa. 533 (1898.)

63 Dunlay v. United Traction Company, 18 Super. Ct. 206 (1901.)

64 Johnson v. Reading City Pass. Ry., 160 Pa. 647 (1894.)

241. A boy, five years old, was killed by a street car. Three witnesses testified that the car which killed the child was running at a high rate of speed, that their attention was particularly attracted to it by the unusual speed, and that the car ran thirty-five feet beyond the crossing where the child was killed before it could be stopped. It was held that the case was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be affirmed.1

Where a child, six years and six months old, was run over by one of defendant's street cars, and the testimony showed that the car was running at the rate of twenty-five miles an hour through a populous part of a borough, near a school house at a time when school children were on the street, and that no notice by gong was given of its approach to the crossing where the accident happened, the case is for the jury.2

A boy, twelve years old, jumped across a ditch which was about two and one-half feet from defendant's street railway track, and stood in the intervening space. A car approached at an unusually high rate of speed, without any bell being rung, (although this was contradicted by defendant's witnesses) and struck the boy. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the boy ran parallel with the car for a short distance on the pavement, then jumped the ditch and ran in front of

1 Dunseath v. Pittsburgh, Allegheny & Manchester Traction Co., 161 Pa. 124 (1894.)

2 Hoon v. Beaver Valley Trac. Co., 204 Pa. 369 (1903.)

the car, and was immediately run over. It was held that the case was for the jury.3

In a case where a child of tender years is injured by the negligence of a motorman, the question of defendant company's negligence is for the jury, when the evidence tends to show that the car was running at the rate of from fifteen to eighteen miles an hour, and that after the child was discovered the car ran up an up-grade from eighty-five to one hundred and fifty feet.*

Where the evidence for plaintiff, although contradicted, tends to show that a child, six years old, was struck by a car running at an unusually high rate of speed; that no signal was given as it approached the crossing where the child was struck, and that the car did not stop on either side of the cross street, the case is for the jury."

Plaintiff, a lad six years and four months old, was killed by a car while playing in the street in attempting to run around the car while running the same way with the car, with some other children. Plaintiff alleged the undue speed of the car as the cause of the accident, and one of the witnesses testified that "the car was going awful fast," another that "it seemed to me she was running quite lively," another, "I noticed the motorman stopping the car as quick as he could;" and the same witness who was uncontradicted, testified that the car "was stopped in half its length." There was no evidence of want of care on the part of the motorman, either before or after the child was seen by him. The court reversed a verdict for the plaintiff of six and one-quarter cents, holding that the defendant was entitled to a compulsory non-suit."

An infant of five years was run over by a car of defendant company, while attempting to cross defendant's tracks. The evidence as to the rate of speed at which the car was traveling and as to whether the infant was standing on the street corner

3 Iaquinta v. Citizens Traction Co., 166 Pa. 63 (1895); 25 Pitts. 167 (1895.)

4 Hooper v. United Traction Co., 17 Super. Ct. 638 (1901.)

5 Maher v. Philadelphia Trac. Co., 181 Pa. 391 (1897.)

6 Cominskey v. Connellsville, New Haven & Leisenring Str. Ry., 4 Super. Ct. 631 (1897.)