Lapinco v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 344
• 101 A. 767
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 742

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroad companies — Headlight—Grossings — Gontributory negligence — Judgment for defendant n. o. v. •</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company for injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of being struck by a locomotive, where it .appeared that tbe accident occurred at night, and plaintiff testified that when he came to the track he had an unobstructed view in the direction from which the train came for 160 feet and saw no engine, but did not say that he saw no headlight; but plaintiff’s two other witnesses who saw the accident did not say that the headlight was not burning, and where there was unimpeached evidence submitted by the defendant that the engine was equipped with a proper light, the presumption that defendant was not negligent in failing to equip its engine ■with a proper light was not refuted, and the trial judge should have directed the jury to find that the headlight was burning.</p> <p>2: Where in such case it appeared that plaintiff stopped, looked and listened at the track next to the one on which the train which struck him .approached, and where plaintiff testified that he did not see the engine, .although he had an unobstructed view for 160 feet, and it appeared that immediately thereafter plaintiff started toward the third track and the instant he put his foot on the rail the engine ran over him, the rule in Carroll v. Penna. R. R. Co., 12 W. N. C.- 348, that it is vain for a man to say that he looked and listened if despite of what his eyes and ears must have told him, he walked directly in front of a locomotive, applied, and the jury having found a verdict for plaintiff the court should have entered judgment for defendant n. o. v.</p>