Armstrong v. Consolidated Traction Co.

Citations

• 216 Pa. 595
• 66 A. 75
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 873

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Pedestrian—Grossing—Question for jury.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff’s story as to the happening of an accident is improbable but not impossible the court is not justified in withdrawing the case from the jury.</p> <p>Stopping before crossing the tracks of a railway is opposed to the idea of negligence and unless, notwithstanding the stop, the whole evidence shows negligence so clearly that no other inference can properly be drawn from it, the court cannot draw the inference as a conclusion of law, but must send the case to the jury.</p> <p>In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that the plaintiff was injured at night at a-crossing which was an exceptionally dangerous one. There were four tracks to watch, two straight ones, and two that curved from another street. Cars were passing every few seconds. There was no safe place to stop until all the tracks had been crossed. Plaintiff exercised due care before starting. Plaintiff knew that there was a rule of the company that after a car had passed around the curve, and had come to a stand to receive or discharge passengers, the car following it should not enter on the curve. Plaintiff halted in the narrow space between the straight tracks, and saw that a car had stopped after passing the curve, and that a following car was standing ready to enter upon the curve. He attempted to proceed and was struck as he left the curved track. The car which struck him must have moved from a full stop sixty-five feet on the curve, and during this time plaintiff had only to glance in another direction and walk about twelve feet. Held, that the court could not say from the testimony that it was impossible for the accident to have happened under the circumstances stated and that the case was for the jury.</p>