Fink v. Wilkes-Barre & Wyoming Valley Traction Co.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Nichol v. Bell Telephone Co. (Pa. 1920)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The plaintiffs’ child, three years old, was run over by a car
It was essential to the plaintiffs’ case that there should be affirmative proof of some act of negligence by the motorman. In the absence of all proof upon the subject the presumption that he exercised due care will prevail. There was nothing in the circumstances shown that would warrant an inference of negligence, and a nonsuit was properly entered. In Woeckner v. Erie Electric Motor Co., 176 Pa. 451, relied on by the appellants, the motorman saw the child leave the curb twenty-five feet from the track on an unobstructed street and advance towards his car, and he had full knowledge of the danger in time to guard against it.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.