Bradican v. Scranton Railway Co.

Citations

• 260 Pa. 555
• 103 A. 1013
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 566

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Injury to child playing in street ■ — Conflicting evidence — Contributory negligence• — Case for jury— Verdict against evidence — New trial.</p> <p>1. Where the testimony is oral and conflicting the case is for the jury.</p> <p>2. A grave responsibility rests upon the trial judge to see to it that no verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence or shocking to judicial conscience is allowed to stand, no matter how many new trials must be granted in order to effect the ends of justice.</p> <p>3. In an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries sustained by an eleven-year-old boy, the case is for the jury and the court erred in entering judgment for the defendant under all the evidence, after a disagreement of the jury, where plaintiff and several other boys testified that plaintiff, in pursuit of a rubber band which had become detached from his sling-shot, slipped on the far rail of defendant’s tracks; that when he started for the track defendant’s ear was 154 feet from the point of the accident, and when he fell it was 40 to 75 feet away running up grade at the rate of ten miles an hour; that at the time of the accident the conductor was running the car while the motorman was inside eating his lunch; and there was an admission of record that the car could have been stopped readily within a distance of 20 feet.</p> <p>4. Considering the age of the injured boy, the issue as to his contributory negligence could not properly be decided by the court as one of law.</p>