Harding v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Argued Jan. 10, 1907. Appeal, No. 242, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 190J, No. 861, on verdict for defendant in case of Frank V. Harding v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Martin, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
There was no evidence of defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff had no recollection of the accident and the witnesses on his side who saw it only said in general terms that when the two cars passed each other the running board of the one on which plaintiff stood was crowded and several men jumped, fell or were pushed or brushed off. A witness for the defense testified that as the oars passed a man on plaintiff’s car extended bis hand, grasped the other car and was thrown backwards against the men behind him, including plaintiff. This *70is the most plausible account that was given, and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thane v. Scranton Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Bumbear v. United Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Bard v. Pennsylvania Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Malpass v. Hestonville, Mantua & Fairmount Passenger RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
3Cited by10 opinions
- Schomaker v. HaveySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Hull v. BowersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Standard Oil Co. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
- Taylor v. Bamberger Electric R.Utah Supreme Court · 1923
- Renney v. Webster, Monessen, Bellevernon & Fayette City Street Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.