256 Pa. 496 | Pa. | 1917
Opinion by
This action was brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband, Hugh Coyle, as a result of injuries sustained by being struck by one of defendant’s
Defendant company had no employee at the station to control or warn the large number of persons it knew would assemble there to take the train. In Muhlhause v. Monongahela St. Ry. Co., 201 Pa. 237, this court held it to be the duty of the carrier to furnish a safe and sufficient means of ingress to, and egress from, its trains, and to exercise “the strictest vigilance” in protecting intending passengers, assembled at its stations, from liability to injury. Although a carrier is not liable for mere rudeness and bad manners on the part of their passengers, or intending passengers, and, therefore, not bound to anticipate and guard against such conduct, yet Avhen it invites the public to use its facilities to visit parks, or places of amusement, it has notice that large croAvds are likely to assemble, and that proper care must be used in protecting them from injuries arising from such conduct as may reasonably be expected to occur, such as a sudden rush on the part of the croAvd to obtain entrance to cars immediately upon arrival of trains at the station. Such acts on the part of a large assemblage of people, congregated for the common purpose of securing passage on a public conveyance, are not within the reasoning of the line of cases Avhich hold the carrier is relieved from liability for damages resulting from unexpected acts of rudeness or improper conduct on the part of other passengers, or intending passengers, but are such as occur so frequently that they may be properly considered as such a natural and probable result that the carrier must recognize and guard against them. As was said in the case above referred to, the means to be employed to insure the safety of persons on such oc
Defendant also contended deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, for the reason his position near the track made the accident possible. The crowd was an orderly one, and deceased had no reason to anticipate a sudden movement on its part. In considering defendant’s contention that deceased was subject to the same rule as the carrier, with respect to knowledge of the tendency of a large gathering of people to rush forward to obtain entrance to cars immediately upon the approach of the train, and, consequently, if defendant was negligent, he also was negligent, we must not lose sight of the fact, that the duty imposed upon deceased was different from that imposed upon the carrier. The latter was bound to take such reasonable precaution to protect its patrons from danger which its experience as a carrier of passengers must have taught, was likely to be present. Deceased, as an intending passenger, had a right to assume thát defendant would perform its duty in this respect, and take reasonable precaution to protect him from danger: Struble v. Penna. Co., 226 Pa. 118. He was also warranted in taking for granted that defendant’s train would approach the station with such degree of care and caution as the circumstances required, and that its employees would take the measures necessary to prevent the happening of an accident, such as occurred. Although deceased was an intending passenger, he was bound to exercisé proper care
Defendant’s counsel, in his paper book, also raises a question as to the sufficiency of proof that the death of Coyle was the result of the accident. At the argument this point was not pressed, and need not be considered.
The judgment is affirmed.