Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Beale

• Decision Date: 02 July 1873
• Citation: 73 Pa. 504
• Parties: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. <I>versus</I> Beale.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 504

73 Pa. 504

Pennsylvania Railroad Co. versus Beale.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 24, 1873.

July 2, 1873.

May 24th 1873.

Before READ, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS and MERCUR, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata county: No. 22, to May Term 1873.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

L. W. Hall (with whom was E. J. Doty), for plaintiffs in error.—A traveller crossing a railroad must stop and look up and down, because the presumption is that a train may be approaching: Penna. Canal Co. v. Bentley, 16 P. F. Smith 30. Where, as in this case, the negligence of the deceased is clear, the court should so determine as matter of law: Pittsburg & C. R. R. v. McClurg, 6 P. F. Smith 294; West Chester & Ph. R. R. v. McElwee, 17 Id. 311; Catawissa R. R. v. Armstrong, 2 Id. 286; Pennsa. R. R. v. Ogier, 11 Casey 71. Not looking for a train is an entire failure of performance of duty: Penna. R. R. v. Heileman, 13 Wright 64; Hanover R. R. v. Coyle, 5 P. F. Smith 396; Reeves v. Del., L. & W. R. R., 6 Casey 464 J. W. Parker and E. D. Parker, for defendants in error.—The obstructions to vision and hearing being such as that the stopping of the deceased would have been of no avail, there was no obligation on him to do so; the question of negligence was for the jury: Philada. & Trenton R. R. Co. v. Hagan, 11 Wright 244; Hanover R. R. Co. v. Coyle, 5 P. F. Smith 396; Pa. R. R. Co. v. Goodman, 12 Id. 329; West Chester & Philada. R. R. Co. v. McElwee, 17 Id. 311.

The opinion of the court was delivered, July 2d 1873, by SHARSWOOD, J.

The evidence of the plaintiffs below showed a clear case of contributory negligence in the deceased. The crossing at which he met with the injury which resulted in his death, was a dangerous one, and as he was well acquainted with it, there was the greater reason that he should exercise the utmost care and caution, by stopping at the railroad before undertaking to pass over. It is very clear that if he had done so but for a few minutes the accident would not have happened. "This evidence," said the learned judge in his charge, "is uncontradicted, that there was a level piece of ground, about ten feet wide, between the hill or bluff and the first track or siding on the approach to the track from the valley upon which the deceased was travelling." It was his plain duty to have stopped at that place, and so the learned judge instructed the jury, but he qualified this instruction by adding, "if you find from the evidence that the approach of the train might have been seen or heard from there." This in fact left the question of negligence to the jury, upon a point not material. Indeed, the duty of stopping is more manifest when an approaching train cannot be seen or heard than where it can. If the view of a track is unobstructed, and no train is near or heard approaching, it might, perhaps, be asked, why stop? In such a case there is no danger of collision — none takes place — and the sooner the traveller is across the...