Henderson v. Phila. R.

Citations

• 144 Pa. 461
• 22 A. 851
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 633

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for a loss by fire, caused by sparks from a locomotive engine of a railroad company, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the fire was communicated by some engine of the defendant company, and also to prove negligence in the construction or management of the engine; such facts, however, may be established by circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>2. When the fire is shown to have been caused, or, in the nature of the case could only have been caused, by sparks from an engine which is known and identified, the evidence should be confined to the condition, management and practical operation of that engine; and testimony tending to prove defects in other engines of the company is irrelevant and inadmissible.</p> <p>3. If, however, the offending engine is not clearly or satisfactorily identified, it is competent for the plaintiff to prove, in support of the allegation that the fire was caused by defendant’s negligence, that the defendant’s locomotives generally, or many of them, at or about th.e time of the occurrence, threw sparks of unusual size causing numerous fires on that part of its road.</p> <p>4. This class of testimony is exceptional in character at the best, and is admissible only because direct evidence is impracticable; the examination, therefore, should be confined to the negligent operation of the engines at and about the time of the fire, with such reasonable latitude, before and after the occurrence, as is sufficient to make such proofs practicable.</p> <p>5. Wherefore, it was error in this case to admit an offer to show the repeated emission of sparks of unusual size by defendant’s engines, during a period of six months preceding the fire, and also a similar offer, . unlimited as to time, under which testimony was received covering periods of two, three and six months, and other testimony not indicating the time to which it referred.</p>