Bamford v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P.No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1897, No. 753, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before White, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged in part as follows : [The defendant company has not undertaken to explain how this accident could occur in any other way — by any witness, I mean; at least no witness that I remember giving testimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 33, Oct. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P.No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1897, No. 753, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before White, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged in part as follows : [The defendant company has not undertaken to explain how this accident could occur in any other way — by any witness, I mean; at least no witness that I remember giving testimony. It would be incumbent on the defendant company to remove this evidence of imperfect machinery, or negligence, by showing in some way…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
The plaintiff Bamford was a man over seventy years of age serving as watchman at the Diamond National Bank of Pitts-*19burg. On October 24, 1896, when on Ms way home from work, at a point where the tracks of the defendant company cross Fifth avenue and Smithfield street, he was seriously injured by a pole, on which was suspended the railway wires, falling upon him. There wits much flatly contradictory evidence as to the canse of the accident; one view of it, that of plaintiff, tended to show that a loop of wire which had become useless, hut which at one time had been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodhart v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Machen v. Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900