Smedley v. Hestonville, Mantua & Fairmount Passenger Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 178, Jan. T., 1897, by 'defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March 'Term, 1895, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Arnold, P. J. 'The facts appear by the opinion of tbe Supreme Court. The court charged as follows : This action is brought to recover damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleges were caused by the negligence of the defendant passenger railway company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 178, Jan. T., 1897, by 'defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., March 'Term, 1895, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Arnold, P. J. 'The facts appear by the opinion of tbe Supreme Court. The court charged as follows : This action is brought to recover damages for injuries which the plaintiff alleges were caused by the negligence of the defendant passenger railway company. Negligence, as you have heard before, means carelessness. The plaintiff was a passenger on one of the defendant company’s cars, and while on the car an accident…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Gbeen,
There could not be any doubt that the accident which caused the plaintiff’s injury resulted in some way from the condition of the track at the place where the car left the track. It was shown by abundant testimony, and not at all contradicted, that at the place of the accident, the bed of the street had been dug out for the purpose of changing the track from the old horse car system to the kind of track required for the new electric system. New rails were being laid and, for the purpose of continuing the travel while the work was going on, the old rails and the new…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wallace v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Johnson v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1912