Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtELKIN, J.
Citation61 A. 903,212 Pa. 409
Decision Date22 June 1905
PartiesKEISER v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.
61 A. 903
212 Pa. 409

KEISER
v.
LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 22, 1905.


Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County.

Action by Mattie E. Keiser against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before MITCHELL. C. J., and BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, and ELKIN, JJ.

Paul J. Sherwood, for appellant. J. B. Woodward, for appellee.

ELKIN, J. The plaintiff in her statement of claim charged the defendant company with negligence in running the train, which caused the accident, at an unusual time and excessive rate of speed, and without giving due warning of its approach to the crossing. The appellee cannot be held liable in damages unless it affirmatively appears from the evidence that there was negligence in some or all of these respects. What does the evidence disclose? The train was running after midnight about 25 minutes behind its schedule time. This is neither unusual nor exceptional, and is not negligence within the meaning of the law, so as to make the defendant liable in damages. Nor does the testimony show that the train was running at an excessive rate of speed. The witnesses of the appellant did not fix the rate of speed. It is true one witness testified that the train was running very fast; but inasmuch as he did not say how fast, nor fix any standard by which the speed of the train could be ascertained, his testimony is without value in this respect. The exact rate of speed, shown by the schedule and fixed by the train record made by the conductor at the time, showed the rate of speed to be a little over 35 miles an hour. It was a fast passenger train with two locomotives, and this rate of speed is not excessive for such a train. It is clear, therefore, that the appellant failed to establish her allegations of negligence that the train was running at an unusual time or at an excessive rate of speed.

The only question left for us to consider in reference to the alleged negligence of the defendant is whether through its employés it failed to give due warning of the approach of the train to the crossing. The appellee contends that it performed its duty

in this respect by providing headlights for its engines and by ringing the bell and blowing the whistle at the proper places before reaching the crossing where the accident occurred. The appellant contends that these signals were not given. There is no serious dispute about the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 34134
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Noviembre 1940
    ...180 Miss. 426, 177 So. 50; Weiss v. Central R. Co., 69 A. 1087; Culhane v. N.Y.C. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 133, 137; Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 61 A. 903; Urias v. Penn. R. Co., 25 A. 256; Lonzer v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 46 A. 937; Horandt v. Central R. Co., 73 A. 93; Foley v. N.Y.C. R. Co.,......
  • Costack v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Enero 1954
    ...Co., 153 Pa. 417, 26 A. 105, 19 L.R.A. 563; Knox v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 202 Pa. 504, 52 A. 90; Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 212 Pa. 409, 61 A. 903; Anspach v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 225 Pa. 528, 74 A. 373, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 382; Charles v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 245 Pa.......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Febrero 1928
    ...63 A. 856; 63 N.Y. 622; 21 N.W. 241; Artz v. Railroad Co., 34 Ia. 154; Gunby v. Colo. & S. R. R. Co., 235 P. 556; 78 A. 1048; 69 A. 1087; 61 A. 903; 90 N.E. 1116. The fact that the witness did not hear crossing signals will not avail, as against the positive testimony that the [149 Miss. 54......
  • Rau v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., No. 6583.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 12 Junio 1930
    ...and note; Foley v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. Co., 197 N. Y. 430, 90 N. E. 1117, 18 Ann. Cas. 631, and note; Keiser v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 212 Pa. 409, 61 A. 903, 108 Am. St. Rep. 872;Anspach v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 225 Pa. 528, 74 A. 373, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 382; note, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Columbus & G. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 34134
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Noviembre 1940
    ...180 Miss. 426, 177 So. 50; Weiss v. Central R. Co., 69 A. 1087; Culhane v. N.Y.C. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 133, 137; Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 61 A. 903; Urias v. Penn. R. Co., 25 A. 256; Lonzer v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 46 A. 937; Horandt v. Central R. Co., 73 A. 93; Foley v. N.Y.C. R. Co.,......
  • Costack v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 13 Enero 1954
    ...Co., 153 Pa. 417, 26 A. 105, 19 L.R.A. 563; Knox v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 202 Pa. 504, 52 A. 90; Keiser v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 212 Pa. 409, 61 A. 903; Anspach v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 225 Pa. 528, 74 A. 373, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 382; Charles v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 245 Pa.......
  • Columbus & Greenville R. Co. v. Lee, 26535
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Febrero 1928
    ...63 A. 856; 63 N.Y. 622; 21 N.W. 241; Artz v. Railroad Co., 34 Ia. 154; Gunby v. Colo. & S. R. R. Co., 235 P. 556; 78 A. 1048; 69 A. 1087; 61 A. 903; 90 N.E. 1116. The fact that the witness did not hear crossing signals will not avail, as against the positive testimony that the [149 Miss. 54......
  • Rau v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., No. 6583.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • 12 Junio 1930
    ...and note; Foley v. N. Y. Cent., etc., R. Co., 197 N. Y. 430, 90 N. E. 1117, 18 Ann. Cas. 631, and note; Keiser v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 212 Pa. 409, 61 A. 903, 108 Am. St. Rep. 872;Anspach v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 225 Pa. 528, 74 A. 373, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 382; note, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1......
  • 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