Callary v. Easton Transit Co.

39 A. 813, 185 Pa. 176, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 689
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 21, 1898·No. Appeal, No. 356·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case was properly disposed of by the learned court below. The undisputed testimony on the part of the plaintiffs established beyond all question that the death of the child was caused by his suddenly darting upon the track immediately in front of the approaching car, and that it was not possible to stop the car in time to prevent the collision. In such circumstances, as we have frequently held, there is no right of recovery, because there is no breach of legal duty to the child.

There is no merit in the second assignment. The motorman, Barnet, was neither a party nor a person having legal interest in the pending suit, and hence the plaintiffs had no right to call him as if on cross-examination. The remaining assignments are of no importance and cannot be sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Callary v. Easton Transit Co., 39 A. 813, 185 Pa. 176, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 689 (Pa. 1898).

39 A. 813 (Callary v. Easton Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Evans v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
212 A.2d 440 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Wilf v. Philadelphia Modeling & Charm School, Inc.
208 A.2d 294 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1965)
Czarniski v. Security Storage & Transfer Co.
170 N.W. 52 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
Keller v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
63 A. 413 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)
Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway
62 A. 523 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)