Legal Opinion

Carlo v. Bessemer Lake Erie R. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 1928No. Appeal, 71PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Appellee was a freight brakeman. The train on which he worked, in going north, stopped at Branehton to take on coal and water. Branehton, within defined limits, Was duly designated as a yard and was governed by yard rules relative to train and engine or “switching” movements. It consisted of five tracks, two main tracks, two sidings, and a coaling plant-supply track, with siding and crossover switches. A coaling tipple spanned the tracks.

When plaintiff Carlo’s train reached the tipple, there was another train on the southbound main track that had stopped north of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Aerkfetz v. HumphreysSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Holzheimer v. Lit Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  4. Cubitt v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Shaughnessy v. Director General of RailroadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Jemison v. PfeiferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Doyle v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  4. Magyar v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Brett v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API