Weiss v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 04 November 1875 |
Citation | 79 Pa. 387 |
Parties | Weiss <I>et al. versus</I> Pennsylvania Railroad Co. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Erie county: Of October and November Term 1875, No. 221.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Davenport & Griffith, for plaintiffs in error, cited Penna. Railroad Co. v. Weber, 26 P. F. Smith 157; Penna. Railroad Co. v. Lewis, antea, p. 33.
J. R. Thompson, for defendants in error.
When the plaintiffs below closed their evidence, they had a perfect primâ facie case to go to the jury. They had given evidence of the negligence of the defendants, and no contributory negligence of the deceased appeared. The presumption of law was that he has done all that a prudent man would do under the circumstances to preserve his own life, and that he had stopped and looked and listened: Penna. Railroad Co. v. Weber, 26 P. F. Smith 157. The onus of proving contributory negligence was thus clearly cast upon the defendants. "It is true," says Mr. Justice Williams, "that when the plaintiff's own evidence discloses contributory negligence there can be no recovery; but if it does not, the burden is on the defendant to disprove care; and in such case the question of negligence is for the jury." It is clear, then, that there was error in the binding direction given by the learned judge to the jury to find for the defendants. The testimony of one witness that Jacob Weiss did not stop, and that he could have seen the train if he had looked, did not justify the court in taking the case from the jury. The fact that the horse the deceased was driving became frightened and unmanageable a short distance from the railroad, if the animal was a gentle one, and was frightened through the negligence of the defendants, and being beyond the control of the deceased, rushed on the track, was an important element bearing upon the case.
The question of concurring negligence in the deceased, under all the circumstances of the case, should have been submitted to the jury.
Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arnold v. Philadelphia & Reading R.R
...Garvey, 108 Pa. 369; R.R. v. Coon, 111 Pa. 430; R.R. v. Lyons, 29 Pa. 113; Ry. v. Kane, 5 Cent. R. 909; R.R. v. Weber, 76 Pa. 157; Weiss v. R.R., 79 Pa. 387; R.R. v. Weiss, 87 Pa. 447; R.R. v. White, 88 Pa. 327; Hyatt v. Johnston, 91 Pa. 196; Longenecker v. R.R., 105 Pa. 328; Kohler v. R.R.......
-
Wright v. Boston & M. R. R.
...a different theory of the burden of proof, which seem to enforce that presumption (Cleveland, etc., R. R. v. Rowan, 66 Pa. 393; Weiss v. Railroad, 79 Pa. 387; Northern, etc., Ry. v. State, 29 Md. 420, 96 Am. Dec. 545; Southern Ry. v. Bryant, 95 Va. 212, 28 S. E. 183; Petty v. Railway, 88 Mo......
-
Klink v. Harrison
...instinct which leads men in their sober senses to avoid injury and preserve life, is an element of evidence." Later, in Weiss v. Pennsylvania R. R., 79 Pa. 387, the Supreme Court said: "The presumption of law was that he had done all that a prudent man would do under the circumstances to pr......
-
Weiss v. Pittsburgh Railways Co
...be, there was a presumption that he used and continued to use due care: Thomas v. R.R., 275 Pa. 157; P.R.R. v. Weber, 76 Pa. 157; Weiss v. R.R., 79 Pa. 387; Rice v. R.R., 271 Pa. 180; Haughey v. 210 Pa. 363; Sontum v. Ry., 226 Pa. 230; Schum v. R.R., 107 Pa. 8. One placed in sudden peril wi......