Gilmartin v. Lackawanna Valley Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 53, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1895, No. 161, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Gunster, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,550. Defendant appealed. Error assigned among others was in submitting the case tc the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
While city passenger railway companies have not an exclusive right to the use of the parts of the streets occupied by their tracks, they have a right of way and a right to an unobstructed track for the passage of their cars. In the use of their tracks their rights are superior to those of the public. The convenience of tbe individual in the use of the part of the street to which the cars are confined must give way to the convenience of the public wbo use tbe cars: Thomas v. Ry. Co., 132 Pa. 504; Warner v. Ry. Co., 141 Pa. 615; Ehrisman v. Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892
- Gilmore v. Federal Street & Pleasant Valley Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Warner v. Peoples' St.-Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Reber v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Thomas v. Citizens Pass. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Galliano v. East Penn Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Dopler v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Bockstoce Et Ux. v. Pittsbgh. Rwys. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Sipko v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.