Keeley v. Shanley
Citations
- 140 Pa. 213
- 21 A. 305
- 1891 Pa. LEXIS 830
Syllabus
<p>1. When the use oil a steam rolling machine is necessary in the lawful construction or repair of a macadamized roadway, upon a highway already open for public travel, such use is lawful, and it is not negligence per se to permit the machine to stand 011 the highway at rest, over a Sunday, when a reasonably necessary incident of such use.</p> <p>2. The provisions of § 2, act of June 30, 1885, P. L. 251, requiring persons using steam machinery upon highways to perform certain duties upon the approach, in either direction, of any one traveling in a vehicle or with a team, apply only to the operation of the machine, and do not regulate the duties of the owner when his machine is at rest, at night, or on Sunday.</p> <p>3. In the latter instances, it is the duty of the owner who lawfully leaves his machine on the highway, to place it in as favorable a location as possible, with a view to avoid accidents, locating it near one side of the road, so as to give the traveler all the space reasonably convenient to pass by; but the law does not exact impossible or unreasonable things.</p> <p>(a) A steam roller, lawfully in use, in the construction of a macadamized roadway of the width of eighteen feet, in the middle of a highway sixtvsix feet wide, was left standing over Sunday on the edge of the already macadamized part of the road, leaving a clear space of about thirty feet at one side. It was covered with canvas tied at the sides or corners, with no watchman in charge of it:</p> <p>4. As it was reasonably impracticable, to move the machine from the hard road, and the spot on which it stood was the safest one, on that section of the road, where it could be placed when not in use, its owners were not negligent in leaving it there, and were not liable for an accident occurring in broad daylight, through the fright of a horse at the sight of the machine.</p> <p>5. A traveler, who, relying upon his horse or his own ability to control it, attempts, without any other precaution th
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- in order to be entitled to present additional evidence, the moving party must demonstrate that the record before the board is incomplete either because appellant was refused the opportunity to be fully heard or relevant testimony was excluded
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark, Collum, Green, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.