DocketNumber: Appeal, 49
Citation Numbers: 141 A. 263, 292 Pa. 458, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 629
Judges: Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer
Filed Date: 1/31/1928
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Argued January 31, 1928. Plaintiff recovered a verdict for the loss sustained by the death of her husband, in a grade crossing accident, and brings this appeal from judgment entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto. Notwithstanding the distressing character of the accident, the record presents no cause for reversal.
The defendant's double track railroad, extending from Baltimore to Philadelphia, passes through the borough of Glenolden, Delaware County, in an easterly and westerly direction, and is crossed therein at right angles by Ashland Avenue. On the evening of December 26, 1923, plaintiff's husband, James P. Tull, a resident of the borough and familiar with the crossing, drove his open automobile northerly along the avenue and on reaching the south track, was killed by a rapidly moving eastbound passenger train. His seven-year-old son was with him and was also killed. According to the evidence for plaintiff, which now must be accepted as true, the deceased stopped about thirty-five feet from the track and presumably there looked and listened. This was the customary stopping place for that purpose. About thirty *Page 460
feet south of the south rail there was a line of telegraph poles, also a bank and possibly trees which to some extent prevented a clear view to the west. However, for twenty-five feet south of the south rail, there was an open view and straight track west for a mile. On any part of that twenty-five-foot space, an approaching train could be seen for that distance by day as could the headlight of a locomotive by night. The electric headlight on the engine in question was in view long before the train came to the crossing, for the night, although dark, was clear. It was the duty of the deceased to have his car under control as he approached the crossing and to look in both directions before driving upon it. Had he done so he must have seen the approaching engine in time to have avoided the accident. As it was, he evidently did not see the engine until he was on the track and it was upon him, then he attempted to turn his car away and was instantly struck. That he had not reached the center of the track is shown by the fact that the demolished automobile and its occupants were found to the south of it. No reason appears why he did not look west just before driving upon the track or why he did not see the approaching engine. Under such circumstances the driver is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and no recovery can be had on account of his injury or death. The settled rule of law in this State is that a traveler upon the highway must stop, look and listen before crossing a railroad track and equally so that after stopping he must continue to look until he has cleared the crossing. In the language of the present Chief Justice, in Provost v. Director General of R. R.,
True, a traveler killed at a crossing is presumed to have performed the duty of care imposed upon him by law; but that presumption is rebutted, where, as here, the evidence clearly shows that had he done so the accident would not have happened. The familiar rule stated in Carroll v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 12 W. N.C. 348, and frequently quoted with approval, that, "It is in vain for a man to say that he looked and listened, if, in despite of what his eyes and ears must have told him, he walked directly in front of a moving locomotive," applies in case of death where the deceased walked or drove in front of an approching train under like circumstances. See Charles v. Lehigh Val. R. R. Co.,
The judgment is affirmed.
Watson v. Lit Brothers , 288 Pa. 175 ( 1926 )
Myers v. B. & O. R. R. , 150 Pa. 386 ( 1892 )
Charles v. Lehigh Valley Railroad , 245 Pa. 496 ( 1914 )
Cubitt v. New York Central Railroad , 278 Pa. 366 ( 1924 )
Gasser v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. , 266 Pa. 493 ( 1920 )
Luken v. Pennsylvania Railroad , 267 Pa. 315 ( 1920 )
Hepps v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R. R. , 284 Pa. 479 ( 1925 )
Provost v. Director General of Railroads , 265 Pa. 589 ( 1920 )
Stark v. Fullerton Trucking Co. , 318 Pa. 541 ( 1935 )
Harris v. Reading Company , 325 Pa. 296 ( 1936 )
Ramsey v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad , 336 Pa. 498 ( 1939 )
Joseph v. Pitts. & W. v. Ry. , 294 Pa. 315 ( 1928 )
O'Neill v. Reading Co. , 296 Pa. 319 ( 1929 )
Rhodes v. Pennsylvania R. R. , 298 Pa. 101 ( 1929 )
Lieberman v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. , 305 Pa. 412 ( 1931 )
Griffith v. Weiner , 373 Pa. 184 ( 1953 )
Marks v. Swayne , 549 Pa. 336 ( 1997 )
Boyle v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co. , 150 Pa. Super. 86 ( 1942 )
Philipsburg Beef Co. v. P.R.R. Co. , 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 254 ( 1930 )
Wisnewski v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. , 186 F.2d 538 ( 1951 )
Ray v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. , 321 Pa. 538 ( 1936 )
Wickline v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. , 347 Pa. 136 ( 1943 )
Brown v. Reading Company , 310 Pa. 516 ( 1933 )
Delmer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. , 348 Pa. 147 ( 1943 )
Ehrhart v. York Rys. Co. , 308 Pa. 566 ( 1932 )
Susser v. Wiley , 350 Pa. 427 ( 1944 )
Kolich v. Monongahela Railway Co. , 303 Pa. 463 ( 1931 )
Vera G. Johnstone, Administratrix of the Estate of Carroll ... , 248 F.2d 71 ( 1957 )