Eastman v. Washington & Canonsburg Railway Co.

Citations

• 37 Pa. Super. 287
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 279

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Crossing track — Conflicting testimony.</p> <p>In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence is conflicting, as to whether the plaintiff was struck by a street car, standing still at the time he commenced to cross the track on a siding on which it was standing, which was suddenly started without warning, or whether he was struck by a car passing upon the main track at the moment he attempted to cross it, and which he must have seen.</p> <p>In such a case where the two conductors and the two motormen are called to contradict the plaintiff’s story which is supported only by his own testimony, and but one of the witnesses squarely and directly contradicts the plaintiff, and that only after a prompting by the defendant’s attorney, the trial judge is not called upon to make any comment in his charge upon any numerical preponderance of the testimony on behalf of the defendant. Hodder v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 217 Pa. 110, distinguished.</p>