Paterson v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Opinion by Mr. Justice Stewart, When one chooses to ride upon the platform of a car rather than wait for a car in which he can be accommodated, if not with a seat, with standing room at least inside, and is injured in consequence, the law does not concern itself to inquire as to the considerations which influenced his choice. Whether serious or trivial, the result is the same. The platform is a known place of' danger, and one voluntarily there assumes the risk. Por the exigency which determines him to take the risk rather than delay for another car, the company is not responsible. In this case the plaintiff, with a courtesy altogether commendable, surrendered his place within the car to a lady who, but for his action, would have been excluded. Having once yielded his place in the car, he was put to his choice whether to ride on the platform or take a later car, just as the [361] person he accommodated would have been obliged to do had he not surrendered his advantage to her. The legal consequence of his choice was that he forfeited the advantage of the presumption, which the law raises in favor of one injured while riding in the car, that the accident resulted from the negligence of the company. His riding on the platform would not excuse negligence on the part of the company in exposing him to known and avoidable danger ; but it put upon him the burden of showing that his injuries resulted from negligence of this degree. There was nothing in the evidence to support any such contention. From all that appears, it was an accident which even more than the care required under the circumstances to exculpate the defendant would not have avoided. Judgment affirmed.