Firestine v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 56 Pa. Super. 42
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 37

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Signals—Evidence.</p> <p>1. In a personal injuries case where the issue turns on whether signals were given by an express train passing a grade crossing at a high rate of speed, there is sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury where two witnesses for the plaintiff, one an experienced trainman, testify positively that their attention was fixed upon the train as it passed the crossing, and that no signal by whistle or bell was given; and this is the case although all of the trainmen testify that signals were sounded.</p> <p>Negligence — Railway—Infant—Damages.</p> <p>2. In a suit against a railroad to recover damages for personal injuries to a boy eight or nine years old where a witness for the plaintiff testifies without objection in regard to the opportunity for labor and wages of boys in the vicinity, such testimony will not be stricken out, after the witness has been subjected to an extended cross-examination on the subject.</p> <p>3. Such evidence is in itself not improper where the age, occupation, and condition in life of the father and mother are shown, and also the age, state of health and physical and mental capacity of the boy.</p>