*1 affirmed at the costs. appellants’ Decree Mr. dis- Mr. Justice Cohen Justice Musmanno sent. Railways
Coyne Pittsburgh Company , Appellant. *2 Bell, Before J., March 1958. Jones,C. Argued 26, Jones and Cohen, JJ. Musmanno, Arnold, Chidsey, reargument 1958. refused June 11, Brieger, Earl W. defendant appellant. for & Pringle, Goldberg, Bredin him Emanuel with appellees. plaintiffs, Martin for appellee. John David defendant, for Rhodes, May Opinion 1958: by 2, Mr. Justice Musmanno, years age, Coyne, and in- struck 19 Aleen alighted jured from she an when eastwardly travelling on had been street car which stopped Pittsburgh East Carson Street Way. She known as Terminal near a T-intersection trespass against parents brought an action in and her operator Pittsburgh Company Railways jury The Baier. the involved Charles automobile, plaintiffs against returned a verdict favor railways company has both The defendant defendants. 328 The n.o.v. a new trial. or seeking judgment
appealed Baier did not appeal. defendant argues plaintiffs railways company motorman of the street failed show that he if it was act of negligence and, did, committed any proximate established injuries. Beading Aileen the record cause of Coyne’s as in the most favorable the verdict-winners, light for a motion considering to do required we are emerges. recital of events following judgment n.o.v., On October about evening at on boarded No. street car Aileen o’clock, Street with intention off getting Carson was meet other with girls Terminal where she *3 seat to the movies. She took a whom she was going Third car and it to got the middle of the when then, stop the car regular immediately which was Street, Terminal she the prior Way to the advanced to stop, the car and handed motorman her transfer front turned and faced the the doors, awaiting ticket. She There nothing at her destination. car’s arrival the since Way stop her of Terminal apprise to visually its thoroughfare at this stretch the on Carson Street she facing) by southern side shadowed (which stone wall which retaining a massive 20-foot-high architectural feature to marking designate or offers no The halt, car to a Way stop. ground the Terminal the the descended open doors, girl the threw motorman steps and took two or three on the pave- to the street struck in the an she was rear violently ment when the had been street car following as the car which, passed distance but Terminal for some abreast the car. alongside moved Way, evidence to show that street presented plaintiffs Terminal Way proceeded stop car ignored the motorman discharged 90 feet where beyond it, point having automobile, moment that at the Miss Coyne seeking was now of the car, the rear around swung that the car, since believing the driver pass it, continue unabatedly now would Way, Terminal passed showing With this Street. up Carson way on motorman contended plaintiffs evidence, after that, of a act specific was guilty he his car at a regular stop, to halt failed having dangerous his at a passenger manifestly discharged, spot. its street car denied that company
The’'defendant at Terminal and called witnesses stopped Way had not at Terminal Way who testified that it was precisely automobile and Miss that the collision between Baier’s op- Of diametrically occurred. these Coyne course, the car did did not stories as whether or posing crucible of passed through at Terminal deliberations and fused in the verdict which jury’s tablets of a factual proclaims imperishable now on the street ear the Terminal finding disregarded question we have no on this Way stop. appeal Thus, the car We are concerned stopped. only with, where Miss 90 feet whether, taking beyond the motorman stopping precipitated regular place, his situation dangerous into he, could have avoided. cautionary foresight, with *4 The defendant asserts that we should company a matter of as there was no state, law, danger associated with the motorman’s Miss discharging Coyne the point eventually alighted. at. where she we This, cannot do. In the stands established way principles of law as unsurmountable as the Chinese Wall Miss she left confronted as the car. In the Line case of v. Laurel Bus 311 Pa. O’Malley Co., 251, said “It is clear that the defendant we guilty ‘A common carrier for of hire owes to negligence. 330 diligence in degree highest and care
passengers the
enabling
(in)
and
carrying
destination
to their'
them
Pittsburgh
safely' (Hughes
Trans
alight
v.
them to
153)
to avoid
150 A.
portation
In carry duty only to “It also said: was defendant’s opportunity safely plaintiffs them an but afford supplied). (Emphasis pass danger.” alight out case discloses it record this In of what the view visionary that we could declare to assume be would proposition indisputable legal the motorman as an “highest degree did. of care” in what he used the show that the Terminal evidence to There is is at its best side .of Street southern Carson oh thé alight spot to wait for or from at which hazardous car; towering only . stone wall is eleven a street allowing the car thus but distant from track, feet space passage . automobiles. A for the of' restrictive point, caught pedestrian this with both a street respective occupying their lanes of only safety against find the base of the travel could ledge about inches which' wide, on a allowed wall only Standing for the thinnest of travelers.. room intending Passengers to board the street car at Way on the. southern side of Carson Terminal Street *5 frowning, side its with did not at that southern wait prey they of the be would where bleak stone barrier splashing the target and passing mud, of the vehicles, nowas from there of inclement weather victim northern side refuge.’ They time on the their bided houses and sidewalks, with wide of Carson Street atmosphere. they companionable When stores, along bowling eastwardly Carson car their street Saw they stop, wou-ld the Terminal Street toward permitting, prepare with traffic and, cross the street, to boarding point. the car tracks to the traverse dangerous accepted generally as that the area was so policeman by-day. Pittsburgh ‘City there stationed During daylight sides the street were hours both parked usually so automobiles that with cluttered compelled moving on the street were automobiles night, at with behind street cars. However, trail parked of the street free of- auto the southern side side mobile automobiles travelled mobiles, overtaking passing them. cars of the street All motorman who had this known to the been particular operating route for six months a car on this employed by company for an overall and had been period'of years. or should have known, He knew, five night discharge passenger along the Chinese that point regular than Wall at other potential push jaws into the of a nutcracker. frigidity
Despite the assumed it cannot law, court be denied that text decisions and books, com- purpose the main mentaries demonstrate that law protect property rights is to and all life, limb, appertaining unnecessary from thereto, invasion. Hu- manity protection. included within blanket nothing pos- There is in all the law books can support proposition sibly give appellant to *6 motorman had fulfilled legal proposition, as a that, doors of of the requirement by opening law every of his head for a simple turning his car; when, by moment he could have determined whether an auto- his spot mobile where approaching was about to alight. “Q. as follows: Did you
The motorman testified to Miss as from say she anything alighted Q. street car she A. Did alighted? or before No, sir. look to see whether there was traffic yourself you the streetcar coming alongside at the time? No, A. Q. I Did didn’t see look if any. you to see there was any? A. You mean getting up and out? by looking Q. A. No. Would have been you able to see traffic moving along side of right-hand the streetcar, be would the side from which she alighted? Would have been able you to see traffic even from the position were if had you looked? you A. My mirror from inside will perhaps show an top of Q. automobile. had turned you head turned your or If your body slightly without could getting up, have you seen in that lane? A. Perhaps, yes.” (Italics traffic added).
The appellant argues that the motorman had no to look for duty approaching automobiles because The Vehicle (Act Code of May 1, P. 75 P.S. Lt 592b) provides: “No operator of a vehicle who meets or overtakes a street passenger car, has stopped for the purpose of taking on or discharging passengers, shall said car pass on the side on which the passengers on or get off, until the car has started, and until any passengers who have may alighted have reached the side of the highway.” The Vehicle Code also prohibits motorists from travelling without lighted headlamps but if night, a motorman saw such an unlighted vehicle after approaching, discharging passenger at argued be scarcely it could stop, car unregular an matter aas acquitted himself, that he in Ms behalf did warn if he charge law, upon bearing down of the peril departing passenger Mm. discharge passengers is to
A about motorman who exercise required is not a regular at a point as surroundings so with the commensurate care danger into any the passengers introducing avoid functioning normal or which, which he aware to see harm come normal desire not his senses and a be aware. he should others, *7 & W. Baker Co. v. Lagaly, In of Earl the case 144 F. 2d cited with Cir.) approval 10th (C.C.A. Pa. 253, al. v. et Stupi al., case of et Vogel in our a from the a child was hit truck which came by on the child was riding. rear of the school bus which of liable Federal In the bus the holding the owners driver the paved highway said: “The knew that Court should have known was traveled knew or generally; the children would start immediately that Lagaly in reach home; across it order to their and knew or have that the was the following should known truck to the bus. without effort ascertain Yet, exerting any from the of traffic without approaching rear, condition ascertain effort to the of the making any proximity the and without children in giving any warning truck, he opened of the the door respect approaching truck, to alight. them all the permitted Considering in totality, and circumstances their the jury facts in the driver finding warranted was negligent was and that the operation bus, in the cause of the accident.” a proximate was v. Laurel O’Malley In the case of Line Bus Co., of law under discussion principle the was supra, pretty the epitomized with declaration “If well that: carriage person of charge used for in of permits knowingly passengers one of them for hire, dangerous place, not get is vehicle at off the place, dangerous stopping character and the the usual passenger know, did not could not see and of injuries.” resulting for the the carrier will be liable (p. 255) company
Although first contend- defendant Way, now Terminal ed car did at that the street argues appeal better off was on that the beyond point discharged Ter- having 90 feet at a been lighting were conditions better minal because point. nothing exhibi- If an excellent this else, logic. highly funda- tion But it overlooks mobile stops fact are established mental that street car may they only notify intending passengers where they ex- must but warn motorists where catch cars object very extraordinary That is care. ercise appel- provision The Code cited Vehicle quoted lant and above. finding, justified jury
We conclude that the appellant circumstances that the case, all the negligent. company appellant argues if it be assumed then that even negligent in trans
that it was the manner in which it *8 ported discharged Coyne, passenger, Aileen this and proximate negligence was not the cause of the accident. question. peculiarly jury It is Proximate cause is a usually “That in natural and which, defined as con any sequence, efficient tinuous unbroken interven ing produces injury, and without cause, A result would not have occurred.”* discussion proximate necessarily involves some cause, produce imponderables, always does not solutions of * Dictionary, p. Black’s Law 1391. History rer perfection.
irrefutable mathematical slight al- but píete with .which, events momentous with ap- order chronology, or dramatic cast, teration drastically pearance have well could characters, of the hap- have changed story What would of mankind. what pened Rubicon, had not crossed if Caesar history had if Blucher the course would have been Hamilton ifor Waterloo, on time at not arrived accepted challenge What would a duel? Burr’s not along happened had not come automobile have if Baier’s Obviously, Miss it did? moment which fateful injured. re- But the fact would not have been turning injured, wishful mains that she was reality. If street alter that back of time cannot stopped or had at Terminal car motorman had opened after mark until doors at the 90-foot not passed, have not the accident would Baier’s car had happened either. The street car and the operated independently unconscious- of one another but bring ly In collision. re- concatenated to about the mishap constructing it is the exercise the unfortunate practical reasoning, of common sense —and disputation labyrinthian deter- elaborate and —which negligent mines or not the act of the motor- whether proximate cause accident. It man was the of the question strictly jury for the that issue was thus comprehensive jury to the in an able and submitted charge, free of error. principle Hughes law announced Pitts
burgh dispose T. 300 Pa. can well Co., 55, 60, question here as to whether the motorman’s proximate constituted cause. We “. said: .. Where there injury there would have been no whatever but for the continuing negligence put of the defendant who first plaintiff peril, neg and which existed when the ligence peril of the other turned the injury, into actual *9 defendants are are concurrent both negligences for oc- injuries liable severally thereby
jointly casioned.” is this pronouncement relevant Court’s
Equally 117 Pa. Twp. the case of Burrell Uncapher, “ ‘If said: the defendant’s con- negligence where we than (other plain- curred with some other event fault) plaintiff’s tiff’s so that produce injury, but for such the in- appears that clearly and both would not have circumstances jury happened, are connected with the in the closely injury order of defendant even his events, responsible, though act not the nearest cause in negligent the order ” (Emphasis time.’ in original). Nor do we find in the record reason for grant trial. appellant complains new The that ing Trial refused submit to the Judge jury requests for of fact. We do not findings see that any purpose would have been served by doing so, especially, since, as we have the Trial already said, Judge covered the factual and legal questions involved in a comprehen sive manner.* appellant advances three other reasons for
new trial: (1,) that the Trial erred in Judge allowing as to how testimony boarded passengers the street car at Terminal Way; (2) the Court erred allow- ing cross-examination as to how the motorman oper- his car; ated street and (3) the verdict of the against jury weight the evidence. We have considered all reasons these and find that none of them or all of them individually combined, light another trial. record, justify affirmed. Judgment
*
Ambridge
Co.,
Brown v.
Yellow Cab
Mr. Justice Abnold join dissenting in this opinion. Jones * considered, If could defendant’s evidence were there any recovery. possibly be Township Appellant, Plymouth
Riccardi, Adjustment. Board of