Rhad v. Duquesne Light Co.

Citations

• 255 Pa. 409
• 100 A. 262
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 468

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Independent agency — Automobiles — Child playing with brakes — Drift down grade — Pedestrian—Judgment for defendant n. o. v. — Injuries—Proximate cause.</p> <p>1. The rale is well settled that in order to recover for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act, and if the facts as to the cause of the injury are not disputed, the question of proximate cause becomes one of law for the court.</p> <p>2. It is not sufficient in such action merely to prove that defendant was negligent; there must also be evidence that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury sustained. Where it appears that the injury was caused by the independent intervention of an agency over which defendant had no control, binding instructions should be given for defendant.</p> <p>3. In an action to recover damages from the owner of an automobile, it appeared that defendant’s chauffeur had set the brakes and left the car standing at the curb, on a down grade, that a boy in passing rattled the brake, whereby it was released and the car started down the street striking plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that 'the chauffeur was negligent in not having turned the front wheel against the curbstone before he left the car. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury which found a verdict upon which judgment was entered. Held, that if defendant was negligent in leaving the car as shown by the evidence, yet the interference of the boy, not defendant’s negligence, was the cause of the injury and the judgment was reversed and entered for the defendant.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Mestrezat dissents.</p>