Mankewicz v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 12 March 1906 |
| Docket Number | 370 |
| Parties | Mankewicz, Appellant, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 13, 1906
Appeal, No. 370, Jan. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Schuylkill Co., May T., 1900, No. 204, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of William Mankewicz v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before SHAY, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
The judgment is affirmed.
R. H Koch, for appellant. The case was for the jury: Elston v R.R. Co., 196 Pa. 595; Coolbroth v. Penna. R.R. Co., 209 Pa. 433; Pyne v. R.R. Co., 212 Pa. 143; Beach v. Penna. R.R. Co., 212 Pa. 567; McCarthy v. Ry. Co., 211 Pa. 193.
Guy E. Farquhar, with him Otto E. Farquhar, for appellee. -- The nonsuit was properly entered: Urias v. Penna. R.R. Co., 152 Pa. 326; Penna. R.R. Co. v. Beale, 73 Pa. 504; Hughes v. D. & H. Canal Co., 176 Pa. 254; Kinter v. Penna. R.R. Co., 204 Pa. 497; Kelley v. Penna. R.R. Co., 19 W.N.C. 400.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, POTTER and ELKIN, JJ.
The plaintiff was injured at a grade crossing of the defendant's road where there were four tracks in the borough of Shenandoah. He was familiar with the crossing, knew that the watchman was not at that time on duty, and that a train was about due. He was driving two horses to a sleigh in which a number of persons were riding, and when he reached the crossing freight cars were standing on the track nearest him, on either side of the street. He stopped close to this track and looked and listened. He was unable to see an approaching train because of the freight cars and, hearing none, he drove on. The front part of the sleigh was struck by the engine of a passenger train on the third track, about forty feet from the place where he had stopped. The train was near the station, running slowly, and was stopped within thirty feet of the place of the collision. The time was six o'clock in the evening in the early part of February and it was snowing. The situation was thus clearly summarized by the learned trial judge: "A man approached a railroad crossing which he confessedly knew to be dangerous, he knew the gates were up and the watchman no longer on duty; he knew that a train was about due, stopping at a place where admittedly he could not see; making no further efforts to advise himself of the true condition of the surroundings, he drove upon the track and was injured."
The rule that a traveler before attempting to cross the tracks of a steam railroad must stop, look and listen is not complied with by stopping where he cannot see. The rule is one of law, absolute and unbending, and must be complied with in good faith for the accomplishment of the end...
To continue reading
Request your trial