Logue v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 239
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 93

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Public highway — ■Crossing — Question for jury.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, positive statements of the plaintiff: that when he entered upon the track of defendant street railway company, at a regular crossing place in a public highway, from a position about three feet from the track, the defendant’s car was 400 feet distant; that the view was unobstructed, with no grade; and that, without any sound of bell or gong, after all the wheels of his wagon had passed the track, the rear shelving of his wagon was struck by the trolley car; were sufficient, in the absence of any evidence for the defendant, to take the case to the jury on the question of negligence and contributory negligence.</p> <p>Negligence — Release of liability — Effect—Validity.</p> <p>When the defendant, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, introduced in evidence a paper called a release, the execution of which was denied by the plaintiff, who it was testified could neither read nor write, the validity of the release was clearly for the jury to determine, there being evidence that the plaintiff was very much under the influence of liquor, when the release was signed, and that such a condition was brought about by some one acting in the interest of the defendant company.</p>