Phillips ex rel. Phillips v. Duquesne Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 8, 1897

Phillips ex rel. Phillips v. Duquesne Traction Co., 183 Pa. 255 (Pa. 1897)

38 A. 611; 1897 Pa. LEXIS 750

Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Peg, Stekrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Peg. Curiam,

The only error assigned here is the refusal of the court below to withdraw the case from the jury by charging, in the language of defendant’s point, that “ under all the evidence plaintiff cannot recover, and the verdict must be for the defendant.” The only inquiry, therefore, is whether there was any evidence for the consideration of the jury on the questions of defendant company’s negligence, and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff. A careful consideration of the testimony has satisfied us that there was, and that the court was clearly right in refusing the point and in submitting the case to the jury on those controlling questions of fact. There is nothing in the case that requires further discussion.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Malcolm Phillips, by his father and next friend, John S. Phillips v. Duquesne Traction Company
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence&emdash;Street railways&emdash;Child of tender years&emdash;Contributory negligence. In an action against a street railway company by a boy nine years old to recover damages for personal injuries, the ease is for the jury when; the evidence for the plaintiff, although contradicted, tends to show that at the time of the accident plaintiff, riding upon a tricycle, attempted to cross the tracks at a point where there was no regular crossing; that ho looked and saw one ear pass, aud then started to cross, but became bewildered when he saw the next ear, and was struck before he could get off the track; that there were wagons either on the track or on the side of the road, and that the car which caused the accident was running at a very high rate of speed, with no gong rung and no guard on the front.