Matthews v. Pennsylvania R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 111, Jan. T., 1890, by plaintiff’, Mary R. Matthews, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1887, No. 770, refusing to take off non-suit. Case to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband. At the trial before Willson, J., the evidence was to the following effect: Plaintiff’s husband went to Collins station, Lancaster county, for the purpose of taking a train of defendant company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 111, Jan. T., 1890, by plaintiff’, Mary R. Matthews, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1887, No. 770, refusing to take off non-suit. Case to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband. At the trial before Willson, J., the evidence was to the following effect: Plaintiff’s husband went to Collins station, Lancaster county, for the purpose of taking a train of defendant company. There was at the said station a passenger platform, resting on the ground at the side nearest the rails and supported by joists at the other side, which was flush with the tracks of…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
We are of opinion that the learned judge below was fully justified in refusing to take off the nonsuit. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant company to submit to the jury. The deceased while waiting at Collins’ station for a train, and while standing on the platform, was struck by the bumper of the locomotive, causing an injury from which he subsequently died. There was nothing in the construction of the platform to make it dangerous. The accident was the result of his own negligence, in standing so near the track as to be struck by the passing engine.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ferran v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. HawkesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1904
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. MaharaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1893