Martin v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co.

Citations

• 261 Pa. 96
• 104 A. 397
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 692

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railway companies — Contributory negligence —Conflicting statements — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. In an action for personal injuries, tbe plaintiff is not required to disprove contributory negligence, but only to make out a case clear of it.</p> <p>2. In an action for tbe death of plaintiff’s husband where from one part of plaintiff’s testimony it appeared that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, but from another part it appeared that he was not, and there were no other witnesses of the accident, the case was for the jury.</p> <p>3. Where in an action against a street railway company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband who was killed by a trolley car while endeavoring to cross the highway at a crossing, plaintiff testifies that the accident occurred in the evening after dark; that she saw her husband as he approached the track; that he looked up and down the track and that she did the same, but neither could see a car approach; that both listened and heard nothing to warn anyone; that she was following her husband; and that when he had advanced over the nearest track, he was struck by a car running at great speed, the ease was for the jury and the fact that plaintiff also testified that she was within two feet of the car and her husband immediately in advance of her when he attempted to cross the track did not warrant the court in disposing of the case as a matter of law.</p>