Muscarella v. New York Central Railroad

Citations

• 265 Pa. 120
• 108 A. 349
• 1919 Pa. LEXIS 510

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grossing — Permissive crossing —Evidence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for tbe killing of plaintiff’s husband at what was alleged to be a permissive crossing, the question whether the crossing was permissive or not, is for the jury, where there is evidence that, at the point in question, there had been a beaten path over the tracks for from eight to twelve years; that persons erosged there to their different employments in the morning and returned at night; that the crossing could be seen plainly until the tracks were ballasted, and after that it could be seen plainly up to the stone on both sides of the tracks; that the paths leading up to the tracks on each side were directly across one from the other; and that when snow was on the ground there was a definite path all the way over the tracks.</p> <p>Negligence — Contributory negligence — Railroads — Death at crossing — Evidence—Case for jury.</p> <p>2. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband killed at a crossing, the question of deceased’s contributory negligence is for the jury, where the evidence was that the deceased stopped and looked before he committed himself to the crossing; that there was no warning given; that at the time it was a little dark, foggy and beginning to rain; that the train could not be seen farther than fifty feet; that the train was running without making much noise; and that the deceased was struck half a second after the train was visible.</p>