King v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Ry. Co.

Citations

• 242 Pa. 497
• 89 A. 577
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Collision—Private crossing — Case for jury — Charge of court.</p> <p>1. The high degree of care as to signalling and speed required of an electric railway at a public crossing is not always required at a private crossing, where the danger of injury is less, but the duty of care does not rest wholly upon a person using the crossing and the railway company is bound to the exercise of care commensurate with the danger of the particular situation.</p> <p>2. In an action of trespass to recover damages from a street railway company for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of a collision between a trolley car and plaintiff’s wagon, it appeared that plaintiff on approaching by a private road the double track of defendant, stopped, looked and listened for a car; that his son got down from the wagon, crossed the track to a place from which he could see 600 feet and not seeing or hearing a .car, signalled plaintiff to drive on; that plaintiff again looked before starting to cross; that the hind wheel of his wagon was struck as it passed over the second rail; that no notice of the approach of the car was given or any attempt made to stop it until it was within 150 feet of the wagon. Held, that no negligence of plaintiff was disclosed by his evidence, and that the question of defendant’s negligence was for the jury.</p>