Wingert v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 262 Pa. 21
• 104 A. 859
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 578

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads—Grade crossing — Collision — Automobile —Driving across tracks — Road on far side impassable — Backing across tracks — Warning—Failure to sound whistle — Sounding of bell — Sudden emergency — Contributory negligence — Gase for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against a railroad company to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision between plaintiff’s automo.bile and a train at a railroad grade crossing the questions of defendant’s negligence and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were for the jury and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where it appeared that plaintiff drove his automobile along .a narrow road and across defendant’s double track line over a permissive public crossing; that plaintiff crossed the tracks in safety, but owing to the impassable condition of the road was unable to ascend the grade on the opposite side, and, the road being too narrow to permit the car to be turned, was obliged to back the automobile over the tracks; that six feet from the nearest track he stopped his car and looked and listened; .that from such point he had an unobstructed view of 641 feet, to a curve, in the direction from which the train approached; that plaintiff neither heard nor saw a train and continued to back and when in the middle of the second track he first saw the train approaching around the curve; that plaintiff then reversed the direction of his car and had almost cleared the tracks when the train crashed into the rear end of his automobile; that no whistle was blown although defendant’s evidence was that a bell was rung 100 yards from the crossing, but both plaintiff and his son, who were in the front of the car with him, testified that they did not hear it.</p> <p>2. In such ease the questions whether the ringing of the bell was in time or was ample warning, or whether a whistle should have been blown, were for the jury.</p> <p>3. In such case, while the accident might have been avoided if plai