Razzis v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co.

Citations

• 273 Pa. 550
• 117 A. 204
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 614

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Signals — Stop, look and listen — Evidence — Presumption — Contributory negligence— Sudden peril — Case for jury — Death.</p> <p>1. In a grade-crossing case to recover damages for the death of a driver, the burden is on plaintiff to show that no proper signals of an approach of a train was given by defendant railway.</p> <p>2. Such burden is met sufficiently to carry the case to the jury, where two witnesses for plaintiff, who were in favorable positions to hear signals, testify that they heard neither bell nor whistle.</p> <p>3. In such case, the presumption is that deceased stopped, looked and listened for an approaching train; if there is affirmative evidence that he stopped, the presumption that he looked and listened is strengthened.</p> <p>4. After stopping, looking and listening at a proper place, it is still the duty of the driver to keep a lookout as he approaches and crosses the tracks, and if he drives in front of an approaching train, he is guilty of contributory negligence, unless his view was obstructed. If the evidence is conflicting as to an obstruction of view, the case is for the jury.</p> <p>5. If a driver stops at a proper place, he is not bound to stop again before entering upon the tracks. If, however, his view is obstructed he must alight and go forward; but if his view is only partly obstructed or shortened, the question whether he should have gone forward to get a better view, is for the jury.</p> <p>6. One placed in sudden peril is not required to exercise the best judgment.</p>