Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.
Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.
Opinion of the Court
It is no doubt true that it was competent for defendant company to show that the injury complained of was due to the negligence of others; but, unfortunately for it, there was evidence that the repairs, out of which the injury grew, were under the immediate charge of its officers while the railway was in actual operation by the company. The public had a right, and, it appears, was accustomed to use the tracks in common with defendant; and, if the track was put in such a condition as to render it dangerous to public travel, it was the duty of those having charge to give adequate warning. Others may have been culpably negligent; but there was certainty evidence which justified submission of the question of defendant company’s negligence to the jury. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Wagner et ux. v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Street railways — Repair of streets — Turnpike—Question for jury — Evidence. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the dangerous condition of a turnpike road occupied by defendant’s tracks, it is proper to submit the case to the jury, where there is evidence that the repairs of the road out of which the injury grew were under the immediate charge of the officers of the defendant, although paid for by the turnpike company, and that the railway was in actual operation by the company at the time of the accident. » In such case it was the duty of the railway company to give adequate warning to the public of the dangerous condition of the road.