Matteson v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 12, Feb. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 302, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Lucian A. Matteson v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for injuries caused by the flowing of land from the alleged negligent construction of a railroad bridge.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 12, Feb. T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., Sept. T., 1904, No. 302, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Lucian A. Matteson v. The New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Trespass to recover damages for injuries caused by the flowing of land from the alleged negligent construction of a railroad bridge. Defendant presented, inter alia, the following points: 1. If the jury should find from the evidence, that any portion of the damages to plaintiff’s farm was caused by the water leaving the river at a point below and south of the Burlingame bridge,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The argument of the appellant directs our attention first to the complaint variously set forth in the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth assignments that the case was submitted to the jury without evidence on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant’s bridge was negligently constructed or that the injury complained of was attributable to any fault therein which ought to have been avoided. The right of the defendant to maintain a bridge over the stream is not questioned, nor can it be disputed that there is a presumption of care in favor of a railroad company which…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Noonan v. PardeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- McGettigan v. PottsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Weaver v. Berwind-White Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Fulmer v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888
- Thompson v. Citizens Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Schlichtkrull v. Mellon-Pollock Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Sebree v. Huntingdon Water Supply Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919