Pennsylvania R. v. Martin

Citations

• 111 F. 586
• 55 L.R.A. 361
• 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4406

Syllabus

<p>1. ’ Railroads—Injury to Licensee — Permitting Use of Path on Right of Way.</p> <p>Plaintiff was walking along a path on the right of way of defendant’s railroad, near the track, when he was struck and injured by a piece of brake shoe, which broke and flew off from a passing car.. The patli was used to some extent, without objection from defendant, by passengers going to and from a station near by, and plaintiff testified that, when injured, he was on his way to such station to meet a passenger, who was ■expected to arrive an hour later, and whom lie desired to see- on business of his own. Plaintiff and others also used the path in going to and from their work, field that, conceding that plaintiff might have been considered as being on the right of way'by defendant’s invitation, liad it been near the time for the arrival of the train which he expected to meet, under the circumstances shown he was at most merely a licensee,. to whom defendant owed no duty of protection, except from wanton or willful injury.</p> <p>3. Same—Negligence—Breaking of Brake Shoe.</p> <p>A railroad company is not chargeable witli negligence because of the breaking of a brake shoe on a car in one of its trains, where it was not too much worn for use, and, so far as any inspection would have shown, had no defect which ought to have prompted its rejection, and whore' the car and shoe were fully inspected hut a few hours previously, and no defect was at that time apparent, either in the shoe or wheel, which would cause the shoe to break.</p> <p>3. Trial—Direction of Verdict.</p> <p>Where the evidence is so conclusive that the court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, would be compelled to set aside a verdict in opposition to it, the,trial judge should direct a verdict, when requested.</p>