Skip to main content
· 4/12/1897

Laib v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

  • 180 Pa. 503
  • 37 A. 96
  • 1897 Pa. LEXIS 952

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grossing—“ Stop, look and listen ” — Province of court and jury — Evidence—Presumption.</p> <p>To bar a recovery in a case in which a person is injured or killed while crossing a railroad, it ipnst be clear and undisputed that if such person had' complied with the rule to stop, look and listen, he must have seen or heard the approaching train. If the evidence raises a doubt on these points it must be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband at a grade crossing, it appeared that at the crossing in question there were four tracks, and that at the highway over the tracks there was a great amount of travel. There were no gates at the crossing and no electric bell. The deceased approached the crossing about sunset in September when rain was descending in torrents, and it was as dark as night. Three disinterested witnesses testified that the deceased stopped with his horses’ heads a few feet from the first track; that he then started across, and he was struck on the fourth track by a train which was going at the rate of fifty miles per hour. They further testified that no bell was rung or whistle blown, and that no train was visible because of the rain and darkness, and that there was no watchman at the crossing at the time of or immediately before the accident. The testimony for the plaintiff was contradicted in almost every material particular by the defendant’s witnesses. Held, that the case was for the jury. If the greater the speed of a train the greater is the degree of care required by the traveler in the performance of his duty to stop, look and listen, the greater also is the degree of care required by the railroad company in giving warning when approaching a road crossing at grade.</p> <p>The presumption that the trainmen performed their duty when a train approached a crossing may be rebutted by the testimony of a single witness for the plaintiff that n

Judges: Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.