Callary v. Easton Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1897,. by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Northampton Co., Dec. T.,. 1894, No. 63, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for the death of a son six years old.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1897,. by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. Northampton Co., Dec. T.,. 1894, No. 63, refusing to take off nonsuit. Trespass for the death of a son six years old. Before Schuyler, P. J. At the trial it appeared that on November 13, 1894, plain-, tiffs’ son, a child about six years old, while playing upon a street on which the defendant operated an electric railway, suddenly darted upon the track immediately in front of an approaching car, and it was not possible to stop the car in time to-save the boy. Under objection and exception the court refused to permit-plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This case was properly disposed of by the learned court below. The undisputed testimony on the part of the plaintiffs established beyond all question that the death of the child was caused by his suddenly darting upon the track immediately in front of the approaching car, and that it was not possible to stop the car in time to prevent the collision. In such circumstances, as we have frequently held, there is no right of recovery, because there is no breach of legal duty to the child.
There is no merit in the second assignment. The motorman, Barnet, was neither a party nor a person…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Wilf v. Philadelphia Modeling & Charm School, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Keller v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street RailwaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Czarniski v. Security Storage & Transfer Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.