Eply v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 509
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Question for jury — Duty to give danger signal.</p> <p>The case is for the jury where there is evidence, tending to prove that the train was running very rapidly on a straight track with a clear view thereof for two miles ahead from the engine cab; that an infant was seen standing near the track at a crossing and facing the engine fully half a mile away; and that the engineer and fireman did not ring a bell or blow the whistle, which might have aroused and alarmed the boy and caused him to advance or retreat to a place of safety.</p> <p>It was for the jury to say whether some danger signal should not have been given.</p> <p>Negligence — Railroads—Increased speed demands increased care.</p> <p>A railroad company when moving its trains through an open and sparsely settled country has the right to do so as rapidly as their machinery and roadbed will allow. Past running under such circumstances does not in itself amount to negligence. Increased speed means, however, increased danger to persons crossing the track and increased care on the part of the railroad company becomes a duty.</p>