Philpott v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 25, 1896

Philpott v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 175 Pa. 570 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 856; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1289

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We find nothing in this record to justify a reversal of the judgment. The case appears to have been tried with marked ability and fairness. Plaintiff’s right to recover depended on questions of fact which were clearly for the consideration of the jury; and they were accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge with full, clear and- accurate instructions. *575Beyond that he had no right to go. If he had complied with defendant’s fourth request for instructions, and charged that, “ under all the evidence in the case the verdict must be for the defendant,” it would have been manifest error. As we had occasion to say in Railroad v. Werner, 89 Pa. 59 (a case in some of its features not unlike the one under consideration), u When the facts are admitted or so clearly and conclusively proved as to admit of no reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the •court to declare the law applicable to them; but, when material facts are disputed or inferences of fact are to be drawn from the testimony, it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine what they are. The line of demarcation, in that respect, between the duty of the court and that of the jury should be ■carefully guarded. While, on the one hand, the court should never permit the jury to disregard or evade its instructions as to matters of law, it should be equally careful not to invade the province of the jury and take upon itself the determination ■of facts about which there is any dispute.” In this case, the learned trial judge acted strictly within the lines of his duty.

We find nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires special notice. Neither of them is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Mary Philpott, now Mary Buck v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company
Cited By: 20 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence — Railroads—Stop, look andlisten — Grade crossing — Obstruction of view. When the facts are admitted or so clearly and conclusively proved as to admit of no reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the court to declare the law applicable to them; but, when material facts are disputed or inferences of fact are to be drawn from the testimony, it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine what they are.. The line of demarcation, in that respect, between the duty of the court and that of the jury should be carefully guarded. While on the one hand the court should never permit the jury to disregard or evade its instructions as to matters of law, it should be equally careful not to invade the province of the jury and take upon itself the determination of facts about which there is any dispute. In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiil’s husband at a grade crossing, it appeared that there were four tracks at the crossing. As the deceased approached the railroad a freight train consisting of about sixty cars was approaching from the north on the third track from him. He attempted to cross and had cleared the third track and was on the fourth when he ivas struck by an engine from the north going at a high rate of speed which was obscured from view by the freight train. The track was straight for nearly a mile in the direction from which the freight train came There was conflicting evidence as to the distance of the freight train from the crossing at the time the deceased started to cross. The evidence was also conflicting as to whether the engine which struck the deceased gave a signal. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the deceased stopped, looked and listened at a place a few feet from the first track. The speed of the freight train seems to have been about fifteen miles an hour, while that of the engine which struck the deceased was variously estimated at from forty to sixty miles an hour. Held, that the case was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.