Ammerman v. Township of Coal
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ammerman v. Township of Coal, 187 Pa. 326 (Pa. 1898)
40 A. 1005; 1898 Pa. LEXIS 1104
Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Pee, Stekrett
Ammerman v. Township of Coal
Opinion of the Court
We find no error in this record. A careful review of the evidence has satisfied us that there was no error in refusing to submit the case to the jury for their consideration, and in directing them to find for the defendant. It was of course incumbent on the plaintiff to show that the much to be regretted accident that befell her husband resulted from the negligence of the township officers in not maintaining the public highway in a reasonably safe condition. In that, she entirely failed, and hence, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. It is unnecessary to consider the specifications of error in detail. There is nothing in either of them that requires discussion.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Annie Ammerman, Administratrix of Robert Ammerman v. Township of Coal
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Townships—Highways. In an action by a wife against a township to recover damages for the death of her husband, the evidence showed that the deceased, at the time he met his death, was driving home in an intoxicated condition, late at night, on a wagon road with which he was familiar. Parallel with the wagon road was a railroad. The intervening space, which was about thirty feet, was level, and vehicles could pass without inconvenience from the wagon road to and upon this space. Crossing the wagon road, the railroad and the intervening space was a mine drift about ten feet deep. The wagon road crossed the drift by a properly constructed and properly guarded bridge. It appeared that the deceased some distance from the drift left the wagon road and drove over towards the railroad, and then, by a zigzag course, proceeded in the intervening space between the wagon road and the railroad, and finally, without ever reaching the wagon road again, drove into the drift, and was killed. Held, (1) that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show that the accident resulted from the negligence of the defendant; (2) that no negligence of the defendant was shown, and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.