Dunseath v. Pittsburg, Allegheny & Manchester Traction Co.

Citations

• 161 Pa. 124
• 34 W.N.C. 381
• 28 A. 1021
• 1894 Pa. LEXIS 649

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Infants.</p> <p>In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s child, it is proper to submit to the jury the question of defendant’s negligence where three witnesses testify that the car which killed the child was running at a high rate of speed, that their attention was particularly attracted by the unusual speed, and that it ran thirty-five feet beyond the crossing where the child was killed, before it could be stopped.</p> <p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Infant—Duty of parents.</p> <p>Whether a mother suffers a child to wander on the street is a matter of fact, and is the subject of evidence, and this must depend upon the care which she took of her child. Such care must be reasonable care dependent upon the circumstances, and is a fact for the jury : Long v. Philadelphia & Reading R. R., 75 Pa. 257, followed.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s child, a boy five years old, was killed at a public crossing by an electric car near his home. There was evidence that the mother, just previous to the accident, was in the kitchen of the house washing the baby, and that she told the boy who was killed not to go away. The boy, however, left the house without the mother knowing it, and going into the street was killed by a trolley ear running at a high rate of speed. Held, that the case was for the jury.</p>