Harvey v. Erie Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1904 |
| Docket Number | 2 |
| Citation | 59 A. 691,210 Pa. 95 |
| Parties | Harvey, Appellant, v. Erie Railroad Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 12, 1904
Appeal, No. 2, Oct. T., 1903, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Venango Co., Jan. T., 1903, No. 39, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Scott Harvey by his next friend, Thomas B Harvey v. Erie Railroad Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before CRISWELL P.J.
The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
The judgment is affirmed.
Edmond C. Breene, and William J. Breene, for appellant, cited: Davidson v. Ry. Co., 179 Pa. 227; Callahan v. Traction Co., 184 Pa. 425; McCusker v. Penna. R.R. Co., 198 Pa. 540; Doud v. Delaware, etc., R.R. Co., 203 Pa. 227; Bard v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., 199 Pa. 94; Newman v. Del., Lack. & W.R.R. Co., 203 Pa. 530.
W. H. Forbes, with him J. S. Carmichael, for appellee, cited: Blight v. R.R. Co., 143 Pa. 10; Carroll v. Penna. R.R. Co., 12 W.N.C. 348; Moore v. R.R. Co., 108 Pa. 349; Penna. R.R. Co. v. Bell, 122 Pa. 58; Marland v. R.R. Co., 123 Pa. 487; Myers v. B. & O.R.R. Co., 150 Pa. 386.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., DEAN, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and THOMPSON, JJ.
The plaintiff, riding on a one-horse dray on a narrow street, stopped, looked and listened when within eighteen or twenty feet of a railroad crossing with which he was familiar. At this place he could see east 250 or 300 feet in the direction from which a train was approaching. The view of the tracks to the east extended as he approached them and at a distance of eight feet from them he could have seen east for more than 1,000 feet. He drove on without looking again to the east until his horse was on the first track, when he saw a train 100 feet from him running at the rate of twelve or fifteen miles an hour. About 200 feet west of this crossing there was a crossing at which there were safety gates, the tops of which could be seen over the houses on the west side of the street. These gates were up when the plaintiff stopped. When he started to cross the tracks he looked at them and continued to look at them as he proceeded, relying on the action of the watchman at that crossing to notify him of danger.
It is evident from the plaintiff's testimony that he drove in front of a moving train which he either saw or could have seen before placing himself in peril. He could have seen it before he started to cross and he could have seen it as he approached the tracks. The duty to continue to look as he approached the crossing was not performed by looking in one...
To continue reading
Request your trial