Nichols v. Pittsfield Township
| Decision Date | 16 May 1904 |
| Docket Number | 101 |
| Citation | 209 Pa. 240,58 A. 283 |
| Parties | Nichols, Appellant, v. Pittsfield Township |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 2, 1904
Appeal, No. 101, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C.P. Warren Co., Dec. T., 1903, No. 2, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Sarah A. Nichols and Perry Nichols, her Husband, v. Pittsfield Township. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before LINDSEY P.J.
The circumstances of the accident are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was order refusing to take off nonsuit.
The assignments of error are not sustained and the judgment is affirmed.
George B. Munn, with him George H. Higgins, for appellant. -- The case was for the jury: Ewing v. North Versailles Township, 146 Pa. 309; Burrell Twp. v Uncapher, 117 Pa. 353; Borough of Pittston v. Hart, 89 Pa. 389; Plymouth Twp. v. Graver, 125 Pa. 24; Hey v. Philadelphia, 81 Pa. 44; Bitting v. Maxatawny Twp., 177 Pa. 213; Hitchcock v. Amity Twp., 200 Pa. 247; Merriman v. Phillipsburg Borough, 158 Pa. 78; Scott Twp. v. Montgomery, 95 Pa. 444; Closser v. Washington Twp., 11 Pa.Super. 112; Yoders v. Amwell Twp., 172 Pa. 447; Boone v. Twp. of East Norwegian, 192 Pa. 206; Davis v. Snyder Twp., 196 Pa. 273; Schaeffer v. Jackson Twp., 150 Pa. 145; Willis v. Armstrong Co., 183 Pa. 184; Heister v. Fawn Twp., 189 Pa. 253.
W. D. Hinckley, W. E. Rice and J. H. Alexander, for appellee, were not heard but in their printed brief said: The proximate cause of the injury was the fright of the horse at a point distant from the accident and upon another road, and that fright was neither alleged nor proved to be due to any neglect of duty on the part of the supervisors of the township.
This case is ruled by Schaeffer v. Jackson Township, 150 Pa. 145; Heister v. Fawn Township, 189 Pa. 253; Willis v. Armstrong County, 183 Pa. 184; Habecker v. Lancaster Township, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 553; Chartiers Township v. Phillips, 122 Pa. 601.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant, Mrs. Nichols, was returning from Youngstown through Pittsfield, and while passing through the latter place and upon Main street her horse, becoming frightened, began to move rapidly and ran down to a country road which crossed Main street northerly at right angles. There, being beyond her control, he turned down the road. At some 300 feet from Main street the tracks of the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad cross this road and at the time of the accident to the appellant a train was crossing at this intersection of the railroad and the road and in consequence the frightened horse when near the train, suddenly turned round and ran back towards Main street.
As a result of the fright of the horse, appellant lost control of him and while he was running away the buggy was run into a ditch upon the east side of the road and appellant being thrown out was injured. Appellant's contention was that appellee's liability arose from negligence in failing to construct and maintain a wall or guard rail along the road at the point in question to protect against accident. The failure of duty which constitutes negligence in such a case must necessarily be the proximate cause of the accident and if such is not the case no liability can arise. In the present case appellant's testimony clearly established that the failure to build the wall or guard rail upon the public road at the point in question was not the proximate cause of the accident. Mrs. Nichols in her account of the accident testifies that she was in the village of Pittsfield when her horse became frightened. That she tried as hard as she could to hold him but that he increased his pace and she was not able to hold him. That he turned the corner and went toward the Philadelphia and Erie Railroad track. That she did not intend to go that way but that the horse carried her around the corner and went toward the railroad track. That the pace increased and she was unable to hold her horse. That a freight train was crossing near the intersection and that the horse went close to the train, then whirled around and ran toward the town and while going in that direction the buggy ran over the embankment. It is clear that the horse became frightened on the Main street in Pittsfield and that appellant there lost control of him and that when he reached the country road he turned down it and went some 300 feet, when a train crossing the intersection caused him suddenly to whirl. Running back towards Pittsfield and at some distance from the railroad, the buggy was run into the ditch.
The proximate cause of the accident was the fright of the horse and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial