Hagos v. Reading Transit & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | 354-1916,355-1916 |
| Citation | 66 Pa.Super. 422 |
| Parties | Hagos v. Reading Transit & Light Co., Appellant (No. 1) |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued November 13, 1916
Appeals by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Berks Co.-1915 No. 18, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Julia Hagos by her next friend and father, Stefan Hagos, and the said Stefan Hagos v. Reading Transit & Light Company.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries to a child seven years old. Before Endlich, P. J.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Verdict and judgment for Julia Hagos for $ 1,245.83, and for Stefan Hagos $ 800. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in refusing defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v.
Affirmed.
C. H Ruhl, with him J. A. Keppelman, for appellant.
John B. Stevens, for appellees.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
The only question in this appeal is whether there was made out a case of negligence, on the part of the defendant, which justified the court below in submitting the question to the jury.
Taking into consideration all the evidence adduced by both plaintiff and defendant, which it had a right to do: Husvar v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western R. R. Co., 232 Pa. 278; the jury could well have found that the motorman could have seen the children were about to cross, or were crossing, the defendant's tracks in time to prevent the accident. The appellant's contention, that the evidence shows that the negligence of the defendant had been made a mathematical impossibility, cannot be sustained. It is as possible that the car was going slowly, and under control, as testified to by the motorman, as that it was going fast, and if it was going slowly, that there was plenty of time for running or walking children to get on the tracks at the crossing ahead of the car. The statement of the motorman, that he had slowed up twice, before arriving at the west crossing of Third street where it crossed Washington street, to avoid the danger of running into men who were attempting to cross, might have been believed by the jury. He was asked: " Did you see any children when you got to the west crossing?
A. -- Not until I took my attention from the man crossing on the lower crossing, then I saw the children in the street."
In Tate v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 244 Pa. 74 there was practically...
To continue reading
Request your trial