Seiwell v. Hines

Citations

• 273 Pa. 259
• 116 A. 919
• 21 A.L.R. 139
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 561

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads — Automobiles — Evidence — Incredible testimony — Suction of train — Grade crossing — Contributory negligen ce — N onsuit.</p> <p>1. Courts are not required to believe that which is contrary to human experience and the laws of nature, or which they judicially know to be incredible.</p> <p>2. A court will not give credence to the proposition, that the suction from a passing train was sufficient to draw into it, up grade, a stationary automobile with the brake on.</p> <p>3. Where a person drives an automobile in front of a rapidly approaching train which he could have seen if he had looked, he cannot recover for injuries sustained.</p> <p>4. If a person drives an automobile upon the tracks of a railroad, and then backs his car, but does not permit it to travel far enough, before he puts the brake on, to clear the overhang of a locomotive, he is guilty of contributory negligence.</p>