Baughman v. Shenango & Allegheny Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1880
• Citation: 92 Pa. 335
• Parties: Baughman <I>versus</I> The Shenango and Allegheny Railroad Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

92 Pa. 335

Baughman versus The Shenango and Allegheny Railroad Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 27, 1879.

January 5, 1880.

November 27th 1879.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. STERRETT and GREEN, JJ., absent

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 186.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

S. H. Miller and B. Magoffin, Jr., for plaintiff in error.—The neglect to stop, look and listen, had no connection with the accident, and could not have contributed to it. The law did not command plaintiff to stop, look and listen, in order to avoid the danger of a defective crossing, and therefore his disobedience could not be declared contributory negligence per se, as it is in cases where the injury results directly from the cause which he was warned to avoid. All the plaintiff seeks to recover is damage for whatever injury he sustained by reason of his horse becoming fast in the crossing. The horse was thrown down, and his shoe pulled off before the engine struck him. This was some injury, and entitled the plaintiff to nominal damages, at least. His right of action was, therefore, complete before he was injured by the train, and it was wrong to nonsuit him. The defendant was liable for all damages which were the direct result of the defect in the crossing, and if such defect was the immediate cause of the injury the plaintiff sustained from the train, he was also entitled to recover. This was a question of fact under the evidence, and ought to have been submitted to the jury.

S. Griffith and Stranahan & Mehard, for defendant in error.— The rule that a person approaching a railroad crossing must stop, look and listen, is based upon an absolute necessity of stopping as a safeguard to the travelling public, and also a duty to the traveller himself.

If this rule is not applicable to this case, we could not imagine a case to which it would apply. Here there was a collision, and this fact showed the necessity of stopping; and, as in every case of collision the rule must be an unbending one, the failure of the plaintiff to do so in this case bars his action for damages, on the ground of contributory negligence.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, January 5th 1880.

The first assignment of error is not sustained. The evidence offered to show the value of the harness and buggy was properly rejected. The plaintiff had already testified that they belonged to W. H. Reed, who had loaned them to him. It was not error therefore for the learned judge to say, that Reed was the proper person to sue for the alleged injury to said articles. A recovery by the plaintiff...