Metzler v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 28 Pa. Super. 180
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 163

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Permissive crossing- — Evidence.</p> <p>A railroad company laid its tracks longitudinally in the center of a street in a populous portion of a city. At a point in this street it erected and maintained a station with platforms on both sides of the tracks. Railings ran along the back of each platform, separating the platform from the street. At a point where a side street opened into the street on which the railroad was built, an opening was made in both railings and the platforms were depressed to the level of the street. Through this opening the public was permitted to pass for a long period of years without any notice restricting the right of passage to passengers only. A boy between nine and ten years old approached the opening, and without stopping proceeded to go over the crossing. A standing train prevented him seeing anything on the second track, and as he stepped upon the second track he was struck by an engine of an express train and killed. There was evidence that this train was going at the rate of from twenty-eight to thirty-five miles an hour, and that it gave no proper signal. Held, (1) that the boy was not a trespasser to whom the railroad company owed no duty whatever; (2) that the question of the railroad company’s negligence was for the jury; (3) that the court could say as a matter of law that on account of the child’s age no question of contributory negligence arose in the case; (4) that a verdict and judgment for the father of the child should be sustained.</p> <p>In the above case it was not error to permit the plaintiff to show that the accident occurred at a time when there was usually the greatest amount of travel upon the crossing. Such evidence would have a bearing upon the question of the care which it was incumbent upon the railroad company to exercise in the management of its trains at that hour of the day.</p> <p>In a grade crossing accident case where the counsel for the railroad company has d