
    Borden v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., Appellant.
    
      Common carriers — Railroads—Free transportation — Employees traveling on passes — Negligence—Release ofi liability — Effect-Burden, of proof.
    
    An employee of a common carrier wbo is required by the exigencies of his employment to travel to and from his work on his employer’s trains, and for that purpose has a pass, is to be regarded as á passenger for hire while riding to and from his work. In such case, the fact that the pass contains a release of the employer from liability for negligence in transportation does not prevent him from recovering damages for injuries sustained through the negligence of the carrier.
    When the plaintiff produced evidence to show that his injuries were caused by the violent bumping of a train, while he was boarding it, he met the burden which is upon him to establish the negligence of the defendant, and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained.
    Argued March 16, 1921.
    Appeal, No. 90, Oct. T., 1920, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Bradford County, Sept. T., 1918, No. 325, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of John J. Borden v. Lehigh Yalley Railroad Company.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trex-ler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Maxwell, P. J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    Verdict for plaintiff for $750 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was refusal of motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
    
      J. Roy Lilley, and with him William P. Wilson, for appellant.
    — When one rides on a pass releasing the carrier from liability be must affirmatively prove negligenee in order to recover damages for any injuries received and is entitled to tbe benefit of no presumptions: Crary y. L. V. R. R. Co., 203 Pa. 525.
    
      Charles M. Culver, and with bim Fanning '<& Kaufman, for appellee.
    — Tbe plaintiff was a passenger: Dugan v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 241 Pa. 565; Wilkes v. B. R. & P. Ry. Co., 216 Pa. 355; McNulty v. Penna. R. Co., 182 Pa. 479. It is negligence to jolt a passenger train while it is receiving passengers at a station: Raugbley v. R. R. Co., 202 Pa. 43. Tbe standard of duty defendant owed plaintiff was “strictest vigilance”: Boekelcamp v. L. & W. V. R. R. Co., 232 Pa. 66; Hatch v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 212 Pa. 29; Englebaupt v. Erie R. R. Co., 209 Pa. 182; Stankowcz v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 125; Walthour v. Pa. R. R. Co., 40 Pa. Superior Ct. 252.
    April 18, 1921:
   Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Tbe only complaint is that tbe court refused judgment non obstante veredicto. Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by defendant. At tbe time of bis injury it was necessary for bim to travel from bis borne to bis place of employment on defendant’s railroad, and as compensation be received a certain sum of money and transportation there and back. For that purpose be received a ticket or pass containing a release of bis employer from liability for negligence in transportation. It was bis duty to take defendant’s train at 5:40 a. m. On tbe morning of tbe accident be went to defendant’s station at the usual time, obtained bis tools from tbe place furnished by defendant for their custody, and boarded tbe train standing at its usual starting place in tbe station; other passengers bad already boarded tbe train; a brakeman stood at or near it. As soon as plaintiff entered one of tbe cars, and before be could be seated, tbe train received an unusual bump which threw and injured plaintiff. At tbe time of the injury, plaintiff was a passenger: McNulty v. R. R. Co., 182 Pa. 479. Tbe measure of duty owing to a passenger in such circumstances is stated in Stankowcz v. R. R. Co., 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 125. Appellant contends that tbe release from liability contained on tbe ticket or pass required plaintiff to prove that tbe accident was caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant. That burden was sustained; in addition to tbe evidence already referred to, there was testimony by plaintiff’s witness Morris justifying tbe jury in finding that tbe accident was caused by tbe violent and unusual coupling of tbe locomotive to tbe train. As tbe jury bas so found on sufficient evidence, pursuant to a charge of which no complaint is made, we are bound by tbe conclusion.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.  