It is elementary that compensatory damages cannot be allowed unless there is satisfactory evidence to support them. Pilipovich v. Pittsburgh Coal Co., supra, 314 Pa. at page 591, 172 A. 136; Endler v. United States, D.C., 101 F. Supp. 332, at page 334; but see Rowles v. Evanuik, supra, 350 Pa. at page 70, 38 A.2d at page 258, "The degree of proof in such cases must vary", and cf. Ginocchi v. Pittsburgh Lake Erie R. Co., 283 Pa. 378, at page 380, 129 A. 323, "* * * much reliance must be placed on the knowledge and common sense of juries acquired through the experiences of life. ("To which we * * * add * * * the sound, conservative judgment of the trial judge." Krasowski v. White Star Lines, Inc., 1932, 307 Pa. 470, at page 472, 162 A. 200, at page 201.
There was evidence that the engineer and brakeman lacked necessary technical knowledge; that they failed to "bleed" off the air in the brakes to attain proper tension; that they failed to affix the skate in the safest manner under the car wheel. Also, as in accidents caused by unattended motor vehicles, the jury could properly have inferred negligence, because in the ordinary course of things such accidents do not happen if the person in control of the car uses proper care; see Endler v. United States, D.C.M.D.Pa. 1951, 101 F. Supp. 332, for an example. Upon these considerations it seemed that a new trial should be granted because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The defendant is liable therefor. As to the law, see and cf. Endler v. United States, D.C.M.D.Pa. 1951, 101 F. Supp. 332. As to Dorothy Reuter's injuries: cerebral concussion — shock, unconscious for some hours; a stellated fracture of the skull; multiple fractures of the pelvis (sacrum, pubis and ischium); separation of the right acromio clavicular joint; lacerations: of the scalp (4½ inches), over the pubis, over the left perineal region (4 inches), over the posterior aspect of the right shoulder (1¼ inches); multiple abrasions and contusions: of the face, right foot (6 inches), left leg (3 inches), over the buttocks (2 inches); falling hair in spots on the right side, in the front and back of the head.
We think, unquestionably, the defendant becomes liable for the damages done herein. Under the statutes in Pennsylvania, which are similar to our statutes, above referred to, that court in Endler v. U.S., D.C.Pa., 101 F. Supp. 332, held that when anyone leaves an automobile and within a short space of time the automobile is found without a driver some distance away the trier of facts can draw an inference that the driver did not leave the automobile in a proper condition, and unless the driver produces evidence which is believed by the trier of facts that explains the accident the trier of facts has a right to believe that the driver was negligent. We think such is applicable here.
While, of course, an unknown person may have tampered with the taxicab during the period it was left unattended by Beach, this possibility was not proof and plaintiff was not required under such circumstances to show that the possibility did not materialize in order to prove negligence and proximate cause. Endler v. United States, D.C.Pa., 101 F. Supp. 332; see also Annotation, 16 A.L.R.2d 979. Kuzminsky v. Wagner, D.C.Mun.App., 87 A.2d 411; Clint v. Northern Assur. Co., 71 Ariz. 44, 223 P.2d 401; Elliott v. Seattle Chain Mfg. Co., 141 Wn. 157, 251 P. 117; Bachand v. Vidal, 328 Mass. 97, 101 N.E.2d 884; Litos v. Sullivan, 322 Mass. 193, 76 N.E.2d 557; Lewis v. Wolk, 312 Ky. 536, 228 S.W.2d 432, 16 A.L.R.2d 974.