Latsha v. Shamokin & Edgewood Electric Railway Co.

Citations

• 222 Pa. 201
• 70 A. 1002
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 680

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Injuries to motorman — Head on collision — Master and servant — Fellow servant — Vice principal — Contributory negligence — Proximate and remote cause.</p> <p>In an action by a motorman against his employer, an electric railway company, to recover damages suffered in a head on collision between his car and another car, where it appears that the superintendent of the company started with the other car, acting as its motorman, shortly after plaintiff’s car, without notice to plaintiff; and that the collision occurred on the plaintiff’s return trip, when the cars were proceeding in opposite directions; and it also appears that immediately before the accident the ears were within sight of each other at such a distance that the accident could only have occurred through the negligence of one or other of the motormen, or of both concurrently, the accident is to be attributed to such negligence as the proximate cause. Whether it was negligence to start out the second car without notice to the motorman on the first, not considered, for the reason that the circumstance was too remote. The law adopts the practical rule of regarding the proximate cause of the occurrence. The question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence in connection with the immediate cause of the accident was for the jury.</p> <p>Where the superintendent of an eleetrie railway company takes out a car to test it, and acts as motorman in the test, he is not a fellow servant of a motorman injured by the negligence of the superintendent operating the car under test. In such a case the superintendent is a vice principal and the company is liable for his negligence.</p>