Marshall v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Citations

• 240 Pa. 272
• 87 A. 575
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 661

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Fright of horse — Proximate and, remote cause — Operation of hand car — Case for jury — Evidence.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for injuries resulting from the fright of a horse, the case is for the jury, where the evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that while driving a buggy near the defendánt company’s tracks his horse became frightened' at steam escaping from an engine not operated, by-defendant,-.but-by an-independent contractor; that plaintiff had quieted his horse when he again became frightened at the approach of a hand car propelled by defendant’s employees, over a public crossing; that the men on the hand car, although warned by plaintiff, failed to stop or slacken speed, as a result of which the horse ran away-and caused the injuries for which the suit was brought. In such- a case whether the proximate cause of the accident was the escaping steam or the .negligent-operation of the hand car was for the jury.</p> <p>2. In a negligence case against a railroad company where the pleadings do not charge that a watchman at a crossing was incompetent, the trial judge cannot be convicted of reversible error in admitting testimony to ¡describe the watchman, although such testimony-incidentally bears upon the watchman’s competency, if the judge clearly instructs the jury that there could be no recovery “for the negligence of the defendant in maintaining an incompetent watchman.’’</p> <p>3. In a negligence case it is not grounds for reversing a judgment for plaintiff because the latter in-answer to. a question of his counsel 'as to ‘how he would estimate the amount of business that he had an opportunity to do and which he could not do by reason of his injury, answered “$500 a year,” if it appears that defendant made no motion to strike out such non-responsive answer.</p>