Gavin v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Gavin v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Joseph Gavin was killed by a street car on Market Street, between Sixty-second and Sixty-third streets, at a place where there was no public crossing. There was no evidence of anything to obstruct the view of the approaching car. No negligent act of the company appeared other than the alleged unlawful speed of the car. The accident occurred between cross streets at eight o’clock in the evening.
The relative rights of the public and street railway companies as to the use of public highways have been frequently expressed. “The dominant right to the use of the tracks of a street railway company on a public highway is in the company; and that right must be conceded and deferred to by all the public who have the right to cross the tracks. When about to cross they must use ordinary prudence to ascertain whether the owner of the tracks is about to use them”: McCracken v. Consolidated Traction Co., 201 Pa. 378; Winter v. Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co., 61 Pa. Superior Ct. 440, 441. Vehicles and pedestrians at crossings must be highly vigilant to observe approaching danger, but a pedestrian is not restricted to the use of established street crossings when attempting to pass from one side of the street to the other. “He may cross at whatever point he elects”: Anderson v. Wood, 264 Pa. 98, 100; Watts v. Borough of Plymouth, 255 Pa. 185, 188. A pedestrian cannot be held negligent by the court, as matter of law, when he attempts to cross a street between the regular crossings, but, he must have due regard to the conditions of the traffic before he commits himself to
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 14 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Street raihuays — Pedestrians—Grossing over tracks between crossings — Relative rights of railway company and pedestrians — Speed. 1. A street railway company has the dominant right to the use of its tracks on a public highway. 2. A pedestrian cannot be held negligent, as a matter of law, in attempting to cross a street between the regular crossings, but in exercising his right he must have due regard to the conditions of the traffic before he enters on the cartway. 3. A motorman has the right to believe that, between crossings, pedestrians will recognize the superior right of travel of the railway car, and will not negligently attempt to cross in the path of a car in full view; but a motorman must not recklessly run down a pedestrian between crossings. 4. The speed of twenty miles an hour between crossing! was held not excessive under the circumstances of this case.