Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6834.
Decision Date | 10 April 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6834.,6834. |
Citation | 103 F.2d 827 |
Parties | KOWALESKI v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
E. Burke Finnerty, of Jersey City, N. J., for appellant.
John A. Hartpence, of Jersey City, N. J., and Thorn Lord, of Trenton, N. J., for appellee.
Before MARIS and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and KALODNER, District Judge.
In the District Court for the District of New Jersey the plaintiff, John Kowaleski, Administrator ad prosequendum of the Estate of Henry Kowaleski, deceased, brought suit against the defendant, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, under the Death Act of New Jersey (Rev.1877, p. 294), R.S.N.J.1937, 2:47-1 to 2:47-6, for the death of Henry Kowaleski, his twelve year old son. The plaintiff's complaint contained the following averments:
Under the New Jersey practice then followed in the court below the defendant moved to strike out the complaint upon the ground that it did not state a legal cause of action. This motion, which was the equivalent of a demurrer (Gross v. New York Central R. Co., 99 N.J.L. 414, 125 A. 110), was granted by that court, which entered judgment for the defendant. We think that its action in so doing, which is the subject of the present appeal, must be affirmed.
Section 55 of the General Railroad Act of New Jersey, P.L.1903, c. 257, p. 673, R. S.N.J.1937, 48:12-152, is as follows:
This statute applies to all persons alike, without distinction as to age or physical or mental condition. Barcolini v. Atlantic City & S. R. Co., 82 N.J.L. 107, 81 A. 494; Erie R. Co. v. Hilt, 247 U.S. 97, 38 S.Ct. 435, 62 L.Ed. 1003. The act by declaring trespassers upon railroad tracks to be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law bars recovery by them against the railroad in actions based upon the negligence of the latter. Barcolini v. Atlantic City & S. R. Co., supra; Erie R. Co. v. Hilt, supra; Erie R. Co. v. Duplak, 286 U.S. 440, 52 S.Ct. 610, 76 L.Ed. 1214. It is, therefore, clear that if the plaintiff's complaint was based upon the negligence of the defendant it was properly stricken out.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, however, does not bar recovery in an action for willful or wanton injury, sometimes as in this case improperly called willful or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Renz v. Penn Cent. Corp.
...Railroad Co., 93 N.J.L. 57, 107 A. 442 (Sup. Ct. 1919), aff'd 94 N.J.L. 283, 109 A. 348 (E. & A. 1920); Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 103 F.2d 827 (3 Cir. 1939), cert. den. 308 U.S. 556, 60 S.Ct. 95, 84 L.Ed. 467 (1939); Erie R. Co. v. Swiderski, 197 F. 521 (3 Cir. 1912); Cohen v. Penns......
-
Marsh v. Norfolk S., Inc.
...himself in a position of peril." Moss v. Reading Co. , 418 Pa. 598, 602, 212 A.2d 226, 228–29 (1965). See also Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania R. Co. , 103 F.2d 827, 830 (3d Cir. 1939)."The mere fact that this action was too late to avoid the accident can in no way detract from the fact that the ......
-
Eden v. Conrail
...440, 52 S.Ct. 610, 76 L.Ed. 1214 (1932); Erie R. Co. v. Hilt, 247 U.S. 97, 38 S.Ct. 435, 62 L.Ed. 1003 (1918); Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 103 F.2d 827 (3 Cir. 1939), cert. den. 308 U.S. 556, 60 S.Ct. 95, 84 L.Ed. 467 (1939); Cohen v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines, 58 F.Supp. 54......
-
LaCroix v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co.
...the company owning or operating the railroad.' (Sec. 55 of the General Railroad Act of New Jersey, as quoted in Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (CCA 3, 1939), 103 F.2d 827, 829.)3 2 Restatement, Torts (Second), § 286, the predecessor of which is referred to with approval twice in our repor......