Miller v. Union Traction Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Miller v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 639 (Pa. 1901)
48 A. 864; 1901 Pa. LEXIS 855
Brown, Fell, McCollum, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter
Miller v. Union Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
The testimony in this ease did not warrant a charge of negligence against the defendant company, and therefore the court below did not err in entering the nonsuit and refusing to take it off. A reference to the testimony and to the decisions of this court in the following cases will show that the plaintiff’s claim had nothing tangible to support it: Smith v. O’Connor, 48 Pa. 218; Hestonville, etc., Pass. Railroad Co. v. Kelley, 102 Pa. 115; Chilton v. Central Traction Co., 152 Pa. 425; Funk v. Electric Traction Co., 175 Pa. 559; Kline v. Electric Traction Co., 181 Pa. 276; Gould v. Union Traction Co., 190 Pa. 198; Fletcher v. Scranton Traction Co., 185 Pa. 147.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Miller v. Union Traction Company
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence—Street railways—Infant—Nonsuit. In an action by a boy eleven years old against a street railway to recover damages for personal injuries, a nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence shows that the plaintiff after turning a corner proceeded on the sidewalk about eighteen or twenty feet when he suddenly left the sidewalk and ran diagonally into the street in such a manner as to come in contact with the side of a car near its front end, or between the fender and the front step.