Berninger v. Sunbury, Hazleton & Wilkes-Barre Railway Co.

Citations

• 203 Pa. 516
• 53 A. 361
• 1902 Pa. LEXIS 753

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Bridges—Ice gorge — Injury to land — Negligence.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries to land caused by an ice gorge at one of the railroad company’s bridges, the mere fact that the ice gorged at the bridge and backed the water on plaintiff’s property does not of itself fix upon the defendant the charge of negligence. Plaintiff must go further, and show that defendant did not construct the bridge with proper care and skill, having regard to the landowners above and below. In such a case the plaintiff is met at the start with the presumption that there was no negligence in the design or construction of the bridge, and this presumption he must overcome in order to recover.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries to land resulting from an ice gorge at a railroad bridge, a nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence offered for the plaintiff showed that the width of the waterway under the bridge was more than double the width of the stream; that this width was ample for all ordinary freshets and floods; that at the time of the accident the ice was from fifteen inches to two feet thick; that it began piling up a considerable distance above the bridge; that the gorge reached a height of fifteen feet; that in its movement down the stream it gathered bulk, and that when it reached the bridge its mass was so huge that it rested against the bridge for three hours; and that in this time the water of the stream was backed and injured plaintiff’s property.</p>