Carlo v. Bessemer Lake Erie R. R. Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Aerkfetz v. HumphreysSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Holzheimer v. Lit Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Cubitt v. New York Central RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Shaughnessy v. Director General of RailroadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Jemison v. PfeiferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Doyle v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Magyar v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Brett v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.