Clark v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Citations

• 24 Pa. Super. 609
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 244

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Passenger—Presumption of negligence — Rebuttal of presumption — Cows on tracks.</p> <p>In an action by a passenger against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the derailment of a train, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the presumption of negligence against the company has been rebutted by proof of the fact that the derailment was caused by a stray cow on the track, where there is evidence that there were farms within a quarter of a mile of the place of the accident, and that on previous occasions trains had been stopped because of cows on the track. Under such circumstances it is for a jury to say whether the company has performed its full duty as to the protection of its passengers.</p> <p>. Negligence — Railroads—Settlement of claim — Release—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries where the defendant sets up a release purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff by her mark, and also a check to her order purporting to have been indorsed by her mark, and also by the signature of her son-in-law, and the plaintiff makes a positive and unequivocal denial of the alleged settlement, and of the execution and delivery of the papers, and' of any knowledge on her part concerning them, or concerning the payment of the money, the case must be submitted, to the jury. The equitable rule of evidence as to the contradiction of a written instrument does not, in such a case, apply.</p> <p>Negligence — Railroads—Settlement of claim — Principal and agent.</p> <p>.Where in a railroad accident case the defendant sets up a settlement with plaintiff, and payment of money to her son-in-law as her agent, and the plaintiff denies all knowledge of the settlement or payment of money, testimony to the effect that plaintiff’s son-in-law after the accident attended to her real estate in the way of collecting rents and payment of bills, is insufficient to warr