Lotz v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1 |
| Citation | 247 Pa. 206,93 A. 274 |
| Parties | Lotz v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 7, 1914
Appeal, No. 1, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Butler Co., Sept. T., 1914, No. 141, from A.D. No. 10 March T., 1914, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Anna Lotz v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband. Before TELFORD, P.J., specially presiding.
There was evidence that a box car on a siding and flush with the street on which deceased was walking, obscured deceased's view to the west, from which direction the train which killed deceased was moving at a speed of from 35 to 40 miles an hour, and that no warning of its approach was given. Other facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict for plaintiff for $3,500 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
R. P Scott, for appellant.
John H. Wilson, for appellee.
Before MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The action was for the recovery of damages by a wife for the death of her husband who was killed under the following circumstances:
The defendant company maintains and operates two main tracks through the Borough of Evansburg, one to accommodate its east bound, the other its west bound traffic. These tracks cross Harmony street, and at this point the company maintains a third track used as a siding. Approaching this crossing from the north one encounters first, the siding, next, the track used for east bound trains, and then the track used for west bound trains. The plaintiff's husband in attempting this crossing on the morning of 25th July, 1913, was struck and killed by an engine on the east bound track. Just before he approached the crossing, and when within about ninety feet he had stopped for a moment to speak with an acquaintance. This was the last seen of him alive. In a very short time thereafter his dead body was seen to fall from the pilot of an engine coming from the west, that had passed the crossing about a distance of two hundred feet. When he first approached the crossing a freight train was moving west on the farthest track. The evidence shows that several freight cars stood upon the siding, the first one almost flush with the street, obstructing his view to the west. Evidently with the passing freight in view he crossed over the siding. This train was just clearing the crossing as the train from the west which struck the plaintiff's husband approached. The evidence offers no other explanation of the occurrence than that, supposing the passing of the freight train to be the only obstacle to his crossing, when that had been removed, he attempted to cross and was instantly struck by the train from the west. The negligence charged was, (1) placing and permitting a box car to stand upon the siding, thereby shutting off view of the approaching train; (2) running the trains past the crossing at an undue rate of speed; and (3...
To continue reading
Request your trial