Schmidt v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

Citation244 Pa. 205,90 A. 569
PartiesSCHMIDT v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.
Decision Date16 February 1914
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
90 A. 569
244 Pa. 205

SCHMIDT
v.
PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 16, 1914.


Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Trespass by Kathleen Schmidt against the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, a corporation, for death of plaintiff's husband. From judgment on directed verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

John J. McDevitt, Jr., and John C. Bell, both of Philadelphia, for appellant. Wm. Clarke Mason, of Philadelphia, for appellee.

ELKIN, J. The question for determination here is whether the alleged contributory negligence of decedent was a question of law for the court or of fact for the jury. The husband was run down and killed after midnight at a grade crossing, and this action was brought by the widow to recover damages. The presumption is that decedent did his duty, which required that he stop, look, and listen before attempting to cross the tracks of defendant company. As has been frequently said, this is only a presumption, which may be rebutted by proofs showing, or tending to show, failure on the part of decedent to observe this imperative rule of law. It is often difficult in the trial of such cases to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption, and what tribunal shall decide the question. If no witnesses are produced to testify as to what a person so injured and killed did as he approached the crossing, the presumption is sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of contributory negligence. If there be direct and positive evidence that the decedent did not stop, look, and listen before attempting the crossing, and there is no testimony that he did perform this duty, there can be no recovery, and it is the duty of the court to so declare as a matter of law. If some witnesses testify that the decedent did perform this duty, and others that he did not do so, it is for the jury to determine the fact. If there be no direct testimony on the subject, but circumstances, physical conditions on the ground, unobstructed view, and other like matters are relied on to rebut the presumption, much depends upon the facts of each particular case in determining whether the question of contributory negligence is for the court or jury.

But, it is settled by a long line of decisions that the question of contributory negligence can only become one of law for the court in clear cases where the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT