Zandt v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad

Citations

• 248 Pa. 276
• 93 A. 1010
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 560

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Railroads — Workmen on or about tracks — Contributory negligence — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. The rights and duties of a person lawfully engaged on or near a railroad track are essentially different from those of a person about to cross such tracks at a public crossing. The law-does not impose upon a person so employed the duty of taking the precautions which are required of the public using a crossing, and does not require him to be constantly looking out for an-approaching train. His duty is to keep a reasonable'lookout for trains, and to exercise care commensurate with the danger and consistent with the faithful performance of his services.</p> <p>2. In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries where it appeared that the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor engaged in work about the piers of a railroad bridge, in a place of danger from passing trains, and was struck -by a train which approached without warning, that the presence of the plaintiff at the place of the accident was known to defendant’s engineers, and plaintiff relied on them to warn him by signal of the approach of trains, the question whether plaintiff kept a reasonable lookout for trains and whether he was in the proper discharge of the duties of his employment at the time of the accident were for the jury, and the court erred in entering.judgment for defendant n. o. v.</p> <p>3. In such case the question whether plaintiff should have familiarized himself from the schedule with the time at which each passenger train would pass the place of the accident, was for the jury.</p>