Schmidt v. McGill

Citations

• 120 Pa. 405
• 14 A. 383
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 496

Syllabus

<p>In an action to recover damages for injuries received by a foot-passenger when struck by a beer wagon at a city street-crossing, the questions of negligence of the defendant in driving recklessly and of contributory negligence of the plaintiff in not looking out for the approach of the team, were raised by the testimony: Held,</p> <p>1. That it was not error to refuse to charge that if the jury believed that at the time of the accident the driver was traveling in an ordinary manner, the defendant was not liable for an injury resulting from the use of a public street.</p> <p>2. That the request assumed the very point in controversy, the question being: Was the driver traveling over the crossing in an ordinary manner — that is, with the ordinary care requisite when passing a point such as that where the accident happened P Waters v. Wing, 59 Pa. 211; Goshorn v. Smith, 92 Pa. 435, and Baker v. Fehr, 97 Pa. 70, distinguished.</p> <p>3. That at a city street-crossing, where both the team and the foot-passenger have the right of way and both are required to exercise care, the material question is, who was negligent, if either P and the solution thereof is clearly for the jury and not for the court.</p> <p>4. That, as the testimony was neither complex nor voluminous, particular reference to it in the charge to the jury was unnecessary, the attention of the jury being clearly called to the law of the case.</p>