Legal Opinion

Koontz v. Baltimore Ohio R. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1932No. Appeals, 73 and 74PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Drew,

The plaintiffs, father and son, recovered verdicts against the defendant in this action of trespass on the ground that the minor plaintiff was injured while using a permissive crossing, as a result of the negligence of the defendant. Having assigned as error the refusal of its motion for binding instructions, the overruling of its motion for judgment n. o. v., and the entry of judgments, the defendant appealed, insisting that there was no permissive crossing and that it was in no sense guilty of negligence.

A description of the locus in quo is necessary for a proper…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Muehlhof v. Reading Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Conn v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Gray v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Brague v. Northern Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Smith v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. McClelland v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Figard v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  5. Ray v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936

7 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