Betts v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 23 May 1899
• Docket Number: 246
• Parties: William Kirk Betts v. The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

43 A. 362

191 Pa. 575

William Kirk Betts v. The Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Appellant

No. 246

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 23, 1899

Argued March 13, 1899

Appeal, No. 246, Jan. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 178, on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before SEARLE, P.J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $5,687.50.

Error assigned was in refusing to give binding instructions for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Henry Streeter and W. T. Davies, of Davies & Davies, for appellant. -- It has never been finally decided that a person is relieved from the duty to stop, look and listen before attempting to cross a steam railroad at a public highway crossing, or that he may heedlessly or thoughtlessly cast himself in front of a moving locomotive, and recover damages Greenwood v. R.R. Co., 124 Pa. 572; Pa. R.R. Co. v. White, 88 Pa. 327; Kohler v. Penna. R. Co., 135 Pa. 346.

Even at a station the plaintiff is not relieved from the duty to stop, look and listen, much less at a public highway crossing, the court below to the contrary notwithstanding: Irey v. Penna. R. Co., 132 Pa. 563; Carroll v. R.R. Co., 12 W.N.C. 348; Penna. R. Co. v. Bell, 122 Pa. 58; Hovenden v. Penna. R. Co., 180 Pa. 244.

Due and ordinary care is to be used in crossing public streets, as in all other transactions in life. Even upon the sidewalks a man is bound to look where he is going: Barnes v. Snowden, 119 Pa. 53; Schmidt v. McGill, 120 Pa. 412; Busby v. Traction Co., 126 Pa. 559; Baker v. Penna. R. Co., 182 Pa. 336; Bacon v. Del., etc., R.R. Co., 143 Pa. 14; Lehigh Val. R.R. Co. v. Greiner, 113 Pa. 600.

Edward Overton, with him William Maxwell, for appellee. -- A passenger who is obliged to pass over an intervening track to reach his train need neither look nor listen, but may assume the way to be safe: Baltimore, etc., R.R. Co. v. State, 60 Md. 449; Gaynor v. Old Colony R.R. Co., 100 Mass. 208; Warren v. Fitchburg R.R. Co., 8 Allen, 227; Klein v. Jewett, 26 N.J. Eq. 474; Weeks v. New Orleans, etc., R.R., 40 La. Ann. 800; P., W. & B.R.R. Co. v. Anderson, 8 L.R.A. 673; Shutt v. R.R. Co., 149 Pa. 266; Flanagan v. P., W. & B.R.R. Co., 181 Pa. 242; Sonier v. B. & A.R.R. Co., 141 Mass. 10; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N.Y. 338; Parsons v. N.Y. Cent. & H.R.R.R. Co., 3 L.R.A. 683; Warner v. B. & O.R.R. Co., 168 U.S. 339.

Before STERRETT, C.J. GREEN, MITCHELL, DEAN and FELL, JJ.

OPINION

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE STERRETT:

In 1894, the plaintiff, whose home was in the borough of Towanda, was regularly employed at Ulster, about eight miles north of the Lehigh Valley Railroad. In reaching his place of business he daily took a local train starting at 6:25 o'clock A.M. from Washington street station on the Bernice branch in said borough, about a quarter of a mile from his home. He usually left home about 6:15 o'clock A.M. and walked south down Main street to Washington street, and then turned east at Washington street, and went about 170 feet down this street to the station. Washington street station is the freight station of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company at Towanda, and is located on the Bernice branch at the eastern end of Washington street, in close proximity to the Susquehanna river. There were no buildings beyond the station on Washington street, and no bridge across the river, so that the street crossing was practically limited in its use to a means of access to and from the station for teams and foot passengers. The sidewalk, which was of stone from Main street to the railroad tracks at Washington street crossing, was continued across the railroad by means of planks laid between the rails. This walk led to the platform steps at the north end of the station where the ticket office was located. South of this walk, for the distance of about 100 feet, the tracks were filled in with earth and red shale, forming a level strip of ground where passengers were received and discharged by passing trains. Passengers on the main line necessarily used this earth platform as it extended on both sides of this track. Plaintiff's train, popularly known as the "Geneva train," was made up at and started from this station. It occupied the side track, next to and in front of the station, for the reception of passengers, and the engine stood facing or upon the Washington street crossing. In order to go aboard this train passengers were required to enter from the earth platform, or to pass around in front of the engine, ascend the platform steps and walk south along the platform until the cars could be conveniently entered.

The following rule, given in evidence was shown to be in force at the time of the accident:

"Any train approaching a station where a passenger train is receiving or discharging passengers must be stopped before reaching the station, and must not proceed until the passenger train moves away or a signal has been given to come on, except where proper safeguards are provided between the tracks." It is admitted that there were no safeguards in this case.

The morning before the accident, the Williamsport and North Branch Railroad Company commenced running a train to Towanda station, about a mile and a half north of the Washington street station, and the junction of the Bernice branch with the main line, to Williamsport, leaving Towanda at 6:15 A.M. and scheduled to arrive at Washington street, at 6:20 A.M. where it was to meet and pass the Geneva train, and leaving there at 6:30 A.M. On the morning of the accident, it was several minutes late. It was at this point, and from the time of starting, in charge of employees of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. According to plaintiff's testimony he came down Washington street on the morning of the accident to take his train as usual. His attention was attracted to it by the ringing of the bell. He passed a two-seated top carriage or hack standing on the edge of the street and sidewalk, near the railroad track, and between him and the street to the north, and crossed over the first rail of the main track, when he was struck and injured by the train coming rapidly down on the main track from the north.

He also testified that, knowing the rule of the company above quoted, and seeing his train still standing at the station, he did not stop, look or listen for an approaching train; that a car was standing on a siding just south of the southern sidewalk of Washington street. This siding crossed Washington street to a coal shed which extended for some distance along the main track and partially obstructed the view to the north. His witnesses testified positively that plaintiff's train was not in motion at the time of the accident, and defendant's witnesses testified just as positively that it was.

The learned trial judge refused defendant company's requests for binding instructions, and submitted the case to the jury in a full, fair and adequate charge, in which the propositions of law involved were amply discussed. The care with which the case was submitted is shown in the following brief summary of the questions submitted to the jury in his charge: "You are to apply the principles which I have laid down to you, as governing the case, to the facts as you shall find them from the evidence, determine first, whether the company was negligent in running the train, called the Williamsport train, over the track at the time they did. If they obeyed the rule as they claim they did, then they would not be guilty of...