Pennsylvania & New York Canal & Railroad Co. v. Lacey
| Decision Date | 31 March 1879 |
| Citation | 89 Pa. 458 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
| Parties | Pennsylvania and New York Canal and Railroad Company <I>versus</I> Lacey. |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD, TRUNKEY and STERRETT, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming county: Of January Term 1878, No. 245.
Felix Ansart, for plaintiff in error.—The neglect of the defendant was the remote cause. There was an intermediate agent, the straw. Except for the strong wind, the fire in the straw would have been extinguished. This case is governed by the principles laid down in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Kerr, 12 P. F. Smith 353.
Where there is no dispute about the facts, the court should decide the question of remote or proximate cause.
W. E. & C. A. Little and Sittser & Harding, for defendants in error.—It was properly left to the jury to determine what was the proximate cause: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Hope, 30 P. F. Smith 373; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Hendrickson, Id. 182; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Stranahan, 2 W. N. C. 215.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered, March 31st 1879, PER CURIAM.
This case is ruled by the Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Hope, 30 P. F. Smith 373. It is a much stronger case than that, for the application of the rule there laid down. The building burned was a storehouse, and the straw fired was a natural incident of the business carried on in the building, and the communication of fire therefore direct to the building without any intermediate cause.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Railroad Co.
...Penna. R. Co. v. Stranahan, 79 Pa. 405; Phila. etc. R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 80 Pa. 182; Penna. Co. v. Watson, 81* Pa. 293; Penna. etc. R. Co. v. Lacey, 89 Pa. 458; Lehigh V. R. Co. v. McKeen, 90 Pa. 122; Phila. etc. R. Co. v. Schultz, 93 Pa. 341; Albert v. Railway Co., 98 Pa. 316; Gowen v. G......
-
Plummer v. New York & Hudson River R.R
... ... defendant's railroad. The evidence for plaintiff showed ... that she was driving with her ... Pa. 373; Hoag v. R.R., 85 Pa. 298; P. & N.Y ... Cent. R. v. Lacey, 89 Pa. 458; Oil Creek & Alleghany ... River R.R. v. Keigron, 74 Pa. 316; ... ...
-
Scott v. Allegheny Valley Railway Company
...373. In the case at bar the question of proximate cause should have been left with the jury: Ry. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Penna. & N.Y. Canal & Ry. v. Lacey, 89 Pa. 458; Lehigh Valley Ry. v. McKeen, 90 Pa. 122; Hoag Alger v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 85 Pa. 293. Leaving the car door open w......
-
Davies v. McKnight
...123 Pa. 421; Bunting v. Hogsett, 139 Pa. 363; Haverly v. Railroad Co., 135 Pa. 50; Penna. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Penna. etc. Ry. Co. v. Lacey, 89 Pa. 458; V.R. Co. v. McKeen, 90 Pa. 129; Fairbanks v. Kerr, 70 Pa. 86; Oil Creek Ry. Co. v. Keighron, 74 Pa. 316. (2) Section 19, act of Apr......