Legal Opinion

Harkins v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 3, 1926No. Appeals, 381 and 382PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The court below directed a verdict for defendant, judgment was entered thereon, and plaintiffs have appealed.

Anna Harkins, wife of the other plaintiff, Philip S. Harkins, testified that she was a passenger on one of defendant’s street cars; she arose to pay her fare, handed the conductor a dollar, and, while waiting for change, the car stopped with a jerk and she was thrown and injured. There is nothing in the evidence to show that any other passenger was affected by the alleged jerk of the car; in fact, no effort was made by plaintiff to describe the atténding circumstances, to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Uffelman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Zieger v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Smith Et Ux. v. Pittsburghi Rys. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Endicott v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. MacK v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Hill v. West Penn Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Harrar v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API