Mead v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co.

Citations

• 54 Pa. Super. 400
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 75

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Collision of automobile and car.</p> <p>1. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for injuries to an automobile struck by a street car, plaintiff testified that his car stalled on the tracks at a crossing when the car was at least 284 feet distant. His testimony was contradicted by defendant’s witnesses who testified that plaintiff had not stopped his automobile before crossing, and that he had driven directly in front of the car when it was only twenty-five to thirty feet distant, and that when the automobile stalled the motorman made every possible effort to stop his car. Held, that it was reversible error for the trial judge to ignore the defendant’s testimony, and to virtually charge that negligence of the defendant might be presumed from the mere fact that the car was not stopped before it reached the automobile.</p> <p>Negligence — Damages—Damages for detention.</p> <p>2. In an accident case where the plaintiff in his statement claims $2,000, testifies to damages in the neighborhood of $1,200, and recovers a verdict for about half of that amount, it is reversible error for the court to charge affirmatively that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for detention. In such a case the question of detention is for the jury.</p> <p>Negligence — Street cars — -Automobiles—Collision between car and automobile.</p> <p>3. Where an automobile stalls on the tracks of a street railway at a grade crossing, it is the duty of the person in charge of it to signal with reasonable promptness to those operating an approaching street car, in order that the latter may know that the automobile could not be gotten off the tracks. In such a case it is reversible error for the court to charge as a matter of law that the driver of the automobile was not required to get out of his car, and go upon the track to warn the motorman of his danger.</p>