Little v. Central District & Printing Telegraph Co.

Citations

• 213 Pa. 229
• 62 A. 848
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 454

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Telephone com,parties — Highway—Act of April 29, 1874, sec. 33, P. L. 73.</p> <p>The right of a telegraph or telephone company to place its poles on the public highways of the state is statutory, and while the Act of April 29, 1874, sec. 33, P. L. 73, conferring the franchise must not be construed so as to defeat the grant, yet the company must exercise its franchise within the statutory limitations.</p> <p>The legislature did not intend by the act of April 29, 1874, sec. 33, to deprive the public of the use of the highways for any proper and reasonable means of travel, but intended that the franchise granted the companies by the act should be exercised in subordination to the rights of the public on the roads of the state.</p> <p>Where a telephone company plants a pole so near to the traveled portions of a highway, that a person seated on the side of a hay wagon with feet extending about a foot from the wagon is injured by contact with the pole, the company will be liable for the injuries sustained.</p> <p>It is not of itself negligence for a person riding in a wagon on a public highway to permit his feet or arms to extend beyond the side of the vehicle. When one is injured while occupying such position, it is for the jury to determine whether he was, at the time, exercising the care required by the circumstances, unless the danger was so apparent that a reasonably prudent person would not have taken the risk. In that event, the court may hold him negligent as a matter of law.</p> <p>Negligence — Driver of private conveyance</p> <p>The negligence of a driver of a private conveyance cannot be imputed to a person riding in the vehicle, who was not the employer of the driver.</p>