Born v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 281, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 1080, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Henry Born v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s wife. At the trial it appeared that on the morning of December 23, 1896, plaintiff’s wife and sister were driving in a wagon on a public road towards a crossing of the defendant company.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 281, Jan. T., 1900, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1897, No. 1080, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Henry Born v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s wife. At the trial it appeared that on the morning of December 23, 1896, plaintiff’s wife and sister were driving in a wagon on a public road towards a crossing of the defendant company. They stopped at a point variously estimated at frota 291 to 320 feet from the track, and then continued without again stopping to look or listen, although…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff alleges that the court erred in refusing to take off the nonsuit, and in sustaining the objection to the question put by his counsel to George L. Digman as follows, to wit: “ Do you know the duties of a railroad engineer as to railroad crossings ? ” As there is no intimation that he was a railroad engineer or was qualified to furnish information on that subject, there was no error committed by the court in saying, “ It is very vague testimony; I do not think it admissible.” The testimony presented a clear case of contributory negligence which plainly justified the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Magyar v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Borofsky v. West Jersey & Seashore R. R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917