John Hancock Ice Co. v. Perkiomen Railroad

Citations

• 224 Pa. 74
• 73 A. 194
• 1909 Pa. LEXIS 729

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroad companies — Sparks—Presumption—Evidence— Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an. action against a railroad company to recover damages for loss by fire, no presumption of negligence arises simply from the fact that the defendant’s locomotive communicated fire to the plaintiff’s premises. The plaintiff must go further and show by evidence, direct or circumstantial, not only that the sparks from the defendant’s engine communicated the fire to his building, but that they were emitted by reason of the defendant’s negligence. When such evidence has been introduced and the court holds it sufficient to go to the jury for the purpose of showing negligence, it is not a presumption of law that the defendant is called upon to meet but affirmative evidence showing the defendant’s negligence. This can only be met by other evidence, and when such is introduced for the purpose, there is a conflict of evidence, and that necessarily sends the case to the jury.</p> <p>2. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the destruction of a building by fire, the plaintiff introduced evidence which tended to show that the building was fired from a spark or sparks emitted from a particular engine; that the engine labored very hard, and emitted much smoke when it started with its load on an up grade siding; that the day was windy and the smoke blew over the roof where the fire started; that immediately before and after the fire large sparks or pieces of live cinder were emitted from the stack of the engine; that there was no other source of fire anywhere in the vicinity, and that there was no stove nor fire in the building. The defendant offered expert witnesses who testified that the spark arrester was of the most approved form and pattern, and of the kind in general use, and that it was entirely efficient for the purpose. The trial judge withdrew the question from the jury as to whether the spark arrester was or was not of the proper form and pattern, and