Shope v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Shope v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co., 242 Pa. 207 (Pa. 1913)
88 A. 920; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 865
Brown, Cueiam, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Shope v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam,

The plaintiff, when injured, was driving in a light spring wagon on a city street, sixty feet in width, that crosses at right angles a street thirty-five feet wide on which the defendant’s cars ran. His horse was on a slow trot and was struck on the shoulder the instant it reached the track. At the house line, about ten and a half feet from the nearest track, the plaintiff had an uninterrupted view in the direction from which the car came for some three hundred and fifty feet. One of his Avitnesses who seav him approaching the crossing attempted to Avarn him of his danger and failing to do so, turned away to avoid witnessing the collision. There was no evidence of excessive speed of the car and the only rational conclusion from the plaintiff’s evidence is that he failed to exercise the care Avhich the law exacts of a driver about to cross the tracks of an electric railAvay company: Smathers v. Railway Co., 226 Pa. 212.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Shope v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Negligence — Street railways — Bight angle collision — Contributory negligence. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff when injured was driving in a spring wagon on a city street sixty feet in width, which crossed at right angles another street thirty-five feet wide, upon which defendant’s cars were operated. He was driving at a slow trot, and his horse was struck on the shoulder the instant it reached the track. At the house line, ten and one-half feet from .the nearest track, plaintiff had an uninterrupted view from the direction in which the car came for three hundred and fifty feet. He testified that he looked and saw no car. The court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. on the ground of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Held, no error.