Legal Opinion

Woodroffe v. Roxborough, Chestnut Hill & Norristown Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1902No. Appeal, No. 229PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal, No. 229, Jan. T., 1901, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 183, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Ellie Woodroffe, Widow, and Francis, Margaret and Robert Woodroffe, minor children of Daniel A. D. Woodroffe, Deceased, v. Roxborough, Chestnut Hill and Norristown Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband.

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 229, Jan. T., 1901, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 183, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Ellie Woodroffe, Widow, and Francis, Margaret and Robert Woodroffe, minor children of Daniel A. D. Woodroffe, Deceased, v. Roxborough, Chestnut Hill and Norristown Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband. Before Finletter, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on July 22, 1900, about five o’clock in the evening Daniel A. D. Woodroffe was killed while riding on the side steps of a summer car, by coming in contact…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mb,. Justice Fell,

A passenger who stands on the platform of an electric car when there are vacant seats inside the car, assumes not only the ordinary risks of the road, but all the risks incident to that position. “ The proper and assigned place for passengers is inside the car. Unless he shows some valid reason to excuse him, a passenger is bound to put himself in the appointed place, and if he does not he takes the risk of his location elsewhere. This is the settled rule of all our cases : ” Thane v. Scranton Traction Co., 191 Pa. 249. The side steps of án open summer car are not…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Thane v. Scranton Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  2. Bumbear v. United Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. New Castle v. Lawrence CountySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Schomaker v. HaveySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Yoes v. City of Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  4. Bainbridge v. Union Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  5. Miller v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908

5 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