Harmon v. Pa. Traction Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtFELL, J.
Citation200 Pa. 311,49 A. 755
PartiesHARMON et ux. v. PENNSYLVANIA TRACTION CO.
Decision Date17 July 1901
49 A. 755
200 Pa. 311

HARMON et ux.
v.
PENNSYLVANIA TRACTION CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 17, 1901.


49 A. 755

Appeal from court of common pleas, Lancaster county.

Action by Albert M. Harmon and Ida Harmon against the Pennsylvania Traction Company, in the hands of William B. Given, receiver. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

C. E. Montgomery, for appellants.

W. B. Given and W. U. Hensel, for appellee.

FELL, J. The defendant's tracks are laid on one side of a turnpike road, and within five feet of the yard fence in front of the plaintiffs' property. A lane 11 feet wide extends along one side of the yard. The plaintiffs' son was riding one of a pair of mules that were attached to a farm wagon, and was going from the farm house towards the road, when he heard a car approaching, but was unable to see it because of a building on an adjoining property which obstructed his view of the road to the east When within 33 feet of the tracks he saw the car, which was 160 yards from him. He had time to cross in safety, as the car was running only about three times as fast as the mules were walking, but he decided to wait. The mules were old and quiet, but when he attempted to stop them they became headstrong. They came almost to a full stop, and then started forward and walked on the tracks directly in front of the car. The boy was not negligent in not sooner attempting to stop the mules after he had noticed that the car was coming. He had driven the mules three or four years, and, as they had not at any time before been intractable, he fully expected that they would stop at his command. The motorman was not negligent as regards the speed of the car, as he was on a country road, and the lane was a private one, not frequently used. No question arises as to his giving a signal of the approach of the car, as the car was both seen and heard; nor as to his duty to look ahead and guard against injury to any one on the track, as he applied his brakes when the mules came from the lane to the road, 30 feet in front of his car. The only possible ground for the imputation of negligence to the motorman is that he saw, or should have seen, that the mules were unmanageable in time to avoid a collision. The plaintiff's case is narrowed to this inquiry, and we find nothing in the testimony which would justify a finding of negligence. The movements of the mules did not indicate to the motorman that they were uncontrollable. When they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Clement v. Adams Express Co., 88-1909
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 20, 1910
    ...R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. 186; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. 439; Edwards v. P. & R. R. R. Co., 148 Pa. 531; Harman v. Penna. Tract. Co., 200 Pa. 311. Lincoln L. Eyre, for appellee, cited as to the question of negligence: St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hauks, 78 Tex. 300 (14 S.W. 691); Marshal......
  • Black v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 315
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 24, 1913
    ...deemed either negligent or the proximate cause of this accident: Gould v. Union Traction Co., 190 Pa. 198; Harman v. Penna. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Davidson v. Traction Co., 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 86; Smith v. Holmesburg, &c., Electric Ry. Co., 187 Pa. 451; Walsh v. Hestonville, &c., Ry. Co.......
  • Timler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 172
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 19, 1906
    ...Co., 198 Pa. 332; Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497; Tyson v. Union Traction Co., 199 Pa. 264; Harman v. Penna. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Hamilton v. Consolidated Traction Co., 201 Pa. 351; Pieper v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 100; Keenan v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 107; March v......
  • Vincent v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 341
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 2, 1908
    ...as regards the speed of the car, as he was on a country road, and the lane was a private one not frequently used: Harman v. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Houston Bros. Co. v. Traction Co., 28 Pa.Super. 374. If the decisions governing right-angled crossings apply, the case should have ended fat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Clement v. Adams Express Co., 88-1909
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 20, 1910
    ...R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. 186; Stiles v. Geesey, 71 Pa. 439; Edwards v. P. & R. R. R. Co., 148 Pa. 531; Harman v. Penna. Tract. Co., 200 Pa. 311. Lincoln L. Eyre, for appellee, cited as to the question of negligence: St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hauks, 78 Tex. 300 (14 S.W. 691); Marshal......
  • Black v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 315
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • February 24, 1913
    ...deemed either negligent or the proximate cause of this accident: Gould v. Union Traction Co., 190 Pa. 198; Harman v. Penna. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Davidson v. Traction Co., 4 Pa. Superior Ct. 86; Smith v. Holmesburg, &c., Electric Ry. Co., 187 Pa. 451; Walsh v. Hestonville, &c., Ry. Co.......
  • Timler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 172
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 19, 1906
    ...Co., 198 Pa. 332; Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497; Tyson v. Union Traction Co., 199 Pa. 264; Harman v. Penna. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Hamilton v. Consolidated Traction Co., 201 Pa. 351; Pieper v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 100; Keenan v. Union Traction Co., 202 Pa. 107; March v......
  • Vincent v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 341
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 2, 1908
    ...as regards the speed of the car, as he was on a country road, and the lane was a private one not frequently used: Harman v. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Houston Bros. Co. v. Traction Co., 28 Pa.Super. 374. If the decisions governing right-angled crossings apply, the case should have ended fat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT