Lebrenz v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 28, 1913

Lebrenz v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 240 Pa. 495 (Pa. 1913)

87 A. 847; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 703

Elkin, Fell, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The facts proved at the trial and the law applicable thereto are very clearly stated in the opinion of Judge Audenreid on which we affirm the judgment. The case is not to be considered in the light of the right of a person crossing over a space between a station platform and a train standing to receive or discharge passengers Who may assume that an intervening track will be kept clear of trains while he is in the act of crossing. The plaintiff’s wife was going from her home to the station and crossed the track in front of a train which she saw approaching.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Lebrenz v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Negligence — Railroads—Contributory negligence — Crossing at station — Miscalculation—Nonsuit. A nonsuit was properly entered in an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s wife, where it appeared that the deceased, an intending passenger, was struck by a train of defendant company, while attempting to cross in front of the same, at a suburban station; that there were two tracks at that point; that passengers wishing to cross from one side of the track to the other to reach their proper platform were obliged to cross at grade, upon a plank walk; that no watchmen were stationed there and no fences were erected; that deceased reached the station a few minutes before the arrival of her own train, saw the train which struck her approaching before she started across the tracks, apparently believed she would be able to cross in front of it, but was struck before she could do so, probably by reason of the fact that it was a special train, running at a high rate of speed, and not stopping at the station as all scheduled trains did. In such case the evidence of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was so clear that the case was properly withdrawn from the jury.