Quigley v. Del. & H. Canal Co.

Citations

• 142 Pa. 388
• 28 W.N.C. 225
• 21 A. 827
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 746

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. When witnesses, in an action for negligence, testify that they did not hear the whistle or bell of a locomotive sounded until it appeared at a certain point, that they were giving particular attention, were listening for such signals, and would have heard them if given, their testimony is more than merely negative, and therefore cannot be disregarded.</p> <p>2. The purpose of giving warning before a railroad train or locomotive comes to a crossing, is not only to prevent persons from driving on the track in front of it, but also to give notice to travelers upon the highway, so that they may not approach within dangerous proximity to the train: Per Ríce, P. J., approved by Supreme Court.</p> <p>3. One guilty of an act of negligence, will be held to have foreseen and to be responsible for whatever consequences resulted from his negligence, without the-intervention of some other independent agency disconnected from the primary fault and self-operating; although, in advance, the actual result may have > seemed improbable: Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. 363.</p> <p>(a) The neglect of a railroad company’s employees to give warning of the approach of an engine to a crossing, caused the driver of a team to go upon the track, where he found himself in such a position of seeming peril that he justifiably dropped the lines and leaped from the wagon, leaving the horses to shift for themselves:</p> <p>4. An injury to one of the horses, resulting, as supposed, from the entanglement of the lines in the wheel of the wagon, while the horses were running away in fright caused by the approach of the engine, was the natural, primary and proximate result of the negligent act of the engineer, no intervening independent cause being shown to exist.</p>