Fetterman v. Rush Township

Citations

• 28 Pa. Super. 77
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Township road — Absence of guard rail — Fright of horse.</p> <p>In an action against a township to recover damages for injuries sustained by a defect in a road, the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is for the jury, where the evidence shows that there were two other roads which the plaintiff might have taken, but the proof is contradictory as to whether the plaintiff knew of the existence of these roads.</p> <p>In an action by a husband and wife against a township to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the unsafe condition of a road, the evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that they were driving in a buggy on a road between a railroad and the embankment of a river. At the point where the accident occurred there was no guard rail, but ten to twenty feet from it was the beginning of a guard rail which extended on. the riverside for some distance over a bridge. Seeing a freight train approaching, the husband alighted and started to lead his horse. As the train approached, the .horse took fright and plunged over the embankment. The husband testified that he did not know of the existence of the guard rail. It also appeared that behind them, from ninety to 100 feet,_ was a lane which crossed the railroad. Defendant claimed that the plaintiff should have turned his horse into this lane. Held, that the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>The question of contributory negligence cannot be treated as one of law, unless the facts and the inferences to be drawn from them are free from doubt. If there is doubt as to either, the case is for the jury.</p>