Gerg v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

• 254 Pa. 316
• 98 A. 960
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 726

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Bicyclist— Watchman —Signal to cross- — -Evidence—-Speed of train — Electric crossing bell —Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. It is the duty of a railroad company when its track crosses a much traveled street or highway to give some sufficient notice of a train’s approach and to moderate the speed of the train to such a rate as, under the circumstances, is reasonably consistent with public safety.</p> <p>2. The duty of a watchman at a railroad grade crossing requires him to know the situation as to safety at the crossing, and parties desiring to cross the track may assume and act on such knowledge, they, however, exercising proper vigilance for their safety under the circumstances. The watchman’s signal to cross is an invitation to everyone present within a reasonable distance waiting and desiring to cross the track, and the meaning of his signal cannot be confined to any one individual whether he saw any one else or not.</p> <p>3. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the death of an eleven-year-old boy at a railroad grade crossing, the question of defendant’s negligence and the contributory negligence of deceased is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs will be sustained where it appears that the deceased when from thirty to. fifty feet from the crossing was in the act of mounting his bicycle when defendant’s watchman made a signal to a man in front of the deceased to cross, although he did not see deceased; that deceased saw the signal, proceeded to cross and was struck and killed by the approaching train.</p> <p>4. In such case evidence was properly admissible to prove the speed at which the train was running, the distance of the train from the crossing, and similar matters showing the conditions or circumstances at the time the watchman gave the signal to cross, as bearing upon the question of the watchman’s negligence.</p> <p>5. In such case evidence was