Badman v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 42 Pa. Super. 531
• 1910 Pa. Super. LEXIS 374

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Fire from sparks — Negligence—Evidence—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the destruction of buildings by fire alleged to have been caused by some sparks from an engine, the case is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence tends to show that the day on which the fire occurred was warm and dry, with a light wind blowing from the railroad towards the buildings; that there was no fire in the buildings at the time; that shortly after a particular engine, whose number was designated, had passed, the fire broke out; that this engine had for several days before given out large sparks; that just before the fire the engine was puffing and moving with a strain, although it had a light load and an easy grade; and that this method of operating the engine resulted in the emission of sparks, although it was equipped with a spark arrester and spark guard.</p> <p>2. When the plaintiff can show by evidence, direct or circumstantial, not only that the sparks from the defendant’s engine communicated the fire to his building, but that they were emitted by reason of defendant’s negligence, it is sufficient to put the case to the jury for the purpose of showing negligence, and it is not a presumption of law that the defendant is called upon to meet, but affirmative evidence showing negligence. This can only be met by other evidence, and when such is introduced for the purpose, there is a conflict of evidence, and that necessarily sends the case to the jury.</p>