Hauser v. Central R. R.

Citations

• 147 Pa. 440
• 29 W.N.C. 471
• 23 A. 766
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 870

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Crossing track — Contributory negligence.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company for personal injuries, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, where it appears from her own testimony that she was not injured on the track, but just as she was about to step upon it, and that she walked directly up against a moving locomotive, which she must have seen or heard had she stopped, looked and listened.</p> <p>Evidence — Fog as cause of accident.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff testified, that she did not see the locomotive on account of fog, but it appeared from her own testimony that she was able to see another train at a much greater distance, and several of defendant’s witnesses testified that there was no fog, there is nothing to submit to the jury as proof that the fog prevented plaintiff from seeing the engine.</p> <p>Evidence — Signal—Scintilla.</p> <p>The negative testimony of the plaintiff that she did not hear any whistle or bell, as against the positive affirmative testimony of six witnesses who did hear, is merely a scintilla of evidence, which is not enough to make out a charge of negligence against the railroad company.</p>