Krenn v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Citations

• 259 Pa. 443
• 103 A. 299
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 431

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Pedestrian — Deafness —Degree of care — Death—Presumption of care — Rebuttal of presumption — Contributory negligence — Evidence ■ — ■ Rebuttal — Absence of lights on engine — Engine visible — Harmless error — Directed verdict for defendant.</p> <p>1. Where a pedestrian is deaf a higher degree of care is imposed upon him at a railroad grade crossing.</p> <p>2. When a pedestrian walks in front of a moving train, in spite of the information afforded by his eyes and ears and is immediately struck, he is guilty of contributory negligence.</p> <p>3. It is a traveler’s duty to keep a lookout while crossing railroad tracks as well as to stop before attempting to cross,</p> <p>4. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband, occasioned by his being struck by a locomotive at a grade crossing, a verdict was properly directed for defendant where it appeared that at the crossing in question there was a single track line with a switch on the near side; that plaintiff stopped, apparently to look and listen just before crossing the switch track, that no bell or whistle was sounded but that the evening was clear and deceased could have seen the engine in time had he looked; and that deceased was struck immediately after stepping upon the track.</p> <p>5. In such case, where defendant’s evidence was that _the headlight and other lights on the engine were burning, the court improperly excluded evidence in rebuttal to show that there was no headlight on the engine, on the ground that such evidence should have been presented as part of plaintiff’s case in chief; but where it appeared that the engine was clearly visible as it approached the crossing, such evidence could not have changed the result and its rejection was harmless.</p>