Barto v. Beaver Valley Traction Co.

Citations

• 216 Pa. 328
• 65 A. 792
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 814

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Collision between wagon and car — Case for ■jury — Contributory negligence.</p> <p>The track of a street railway company is not intended for use by pedestrians but it is open for use by those riding in vehicles. The place between the rails in cities and boroughs is paved for that purpose and the traveling public are at liberty to drive on it. Their right to use this part of the street is subordinate only to the right of the company to have a clear track. They are expected to use it both from necessity at times and for convenience when it offers a better passageway. One using it for convenience cannot be charged with negligence simply because of the fact that he could have driven at the sides of the street.</p> <p>In an action by a man and wife against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that the defendant company had a single track electric railway on the street of a borough, on which one car was run every fifteen minutes. The track was at the middle of the street, and there was room on either side for vehicles. The space between the rails was paved; the rest of the street was an ordinary dirt road. The plaintiffs at night were riding in a buggy at a slow trot on the track. The top of the buggy was down and they had looked back several times to see whether a car was coming. They first observed the car when it was a rod from them and the buggy was struck before they succeeded in getting clear of the track. The car was running fifteen miles an hour without a headlight and no signal of its approach was given. Held, that the case was for the jury.</p> <p>Gilmartin v. Rapid Transit Co., 186 Pa. 193; Penman v. Ry. Co., 201 Pa. 247, distinguished on the ground that plaintiffs were pedestrians.</p>