Herr v. City of Lebanon

Citations

• 149 Pa. 222
• 24 A. 207
• 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1100

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Proximate and remote and concurrent causes—Highways— , Guards.</p> <p>^ tW° causes are operating at the same time to produce a given l‘esult> which might be produced by either, they are eonourrent causes. if two distinct causes are successive and unrelated in their operation, one of them must be the proximate and the other the remote cause. In such case, the law regards the proximate as the efficient and responsible cause and disregards the remote.</p> <p>A horse which was drawing the omnibus in which plaintiff was riding fell near the middle of a roadway about 20 feet wide and in good condition. On one side of the road was a steep descent of several feet without any guard rail. The horse struggled to regain its feet, but failed; in its struggles, it went over the declivity, dragging the omnibus after it, and the plaintiff was injured. The jury found that the city was negligent in not erecting a barrier at the edge of the highway; but that the fall of the horse was not caused by the negligence of the city; held, that the city was not liable. Wagner v. Jackson Township, 133 Pa. 61, overruled.</p> <p>If any injury were suffered by reason of the absence of the barrier of which such absence was the proximate or efficient cause, the city would be liable. If, therefore, in the ordinary use of the street, one had been crowded over the bank by the volume of the travel, by the sudden shying of his horse, or by the accumulation of ice on the roadway, the absence of the barrier might justify a recovery, if the 2ilaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence: Per Williams, J.</p>