258 Pa. 589 | Pa. | 1917
Opinion by
This is an action against a street railway company for injuries to a passenger. On tbe afternoon of May 29, 1914, plaintiff became a passenger on one of defendant’s electric street cars to go from Scranton to Old Forge, in Lackawanna County. He remained on tbe rear platform; and as the car rounded a curve after passing down off tbe bridge or viaduct near Taylor be was thrown or fell to the street pavement and was injured. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the accident happened at or beyond the curve; also as to whether it was the result of a sudden lurch or jolt of the car, or of plaintiff’s carelessly stepping back off the platform; also as to the speed of the car, which estimates of witnesses placed from seven to twenty-five miles per hour; and as to whether the car was so crowded that there was no standing room inside for plaintiff; and, if there was such standing room inside, whether the entrance to the car was so crowded as to render it impracticable for plaintiff to reach the same; and also as to the extent of plaintiff’s injuries. While as to some of these questions the preponderance of the evidence was strongly with defendant, yet as to each there was evidence tending to support plaintiff’s contention, and make the case proper for submission to the jury. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. He began seemingly to deliver a general charge but after some comments said to the jury, “One question about which there is evidently some dispute here between the parties, gqes to the extent to which the car was loaded with passengers at the time and I .have enough curiosity about it so I want the benefit of your judgment.” Which he followed by calling their attention to the evidence upon that.question, and then said, “This in a very general way covers the evi
The practice adopted by the court below may seem to be sanctioned by Union Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Gilpin, 235 Pa. 524; but that was an action of assumpsit and the several findings may have embraced all the essential facts. The objections there were not to the right of the court to so submit questions to the jury, but to the manner in which they were submitted and to certain particular questions. There the appellant seems to have joined in that method of submission and requested the court to submit certain other questions, as we learn from the paper books. And in O’Boyle v. Kelly, 249 Pa. 13, 19, the method of submitting the case was unimportant for we there held, “that the trial judge would have
As the question submitted to the jury here was not of itself conclusive of the rights of the parties, and as the court suggested that after its answer he would instruct the jury upon the further questions in the case, we cannot say that plaintiff’s rights were waived bécause his counsel failed to object to that question and call the court’s attention to certain evidence relating thereto. Before the verdict was rendered plaintiff secured an exception to the charge of the court and answers to the points in the usual form.
In view of plaintiff’s contention that he was unable, to pass into the car because of passengers standing therein, the question as to whether they were standing in the front or rear end of the car became of some moment; and in our opinion the court erred in charging the jury that it was a minor circumstance and did not make much difference one way or the other. We therefore sustain the seventh assignment of error relating thereto. The first and fifth assignments of error referring to the action of the court in submitting the one single question to the jury are also sustained, as is the sixth assignment to that part of the charge directing the jury to find for the defendant. And as the court only instructed the jury as to one question, the ninth assignment of error, which complains of the charge as a whole, is also sustained.
The judgment is reversed and a venire facias de novo awarded.