Claude Mack v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

283 F.2d 405, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3494
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1960
Docket13238
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 283 F.2d 405 (Claude Mack v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claude Mack v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 283 F.2d 405, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3494 (3d Cir. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal at bar is without merit. It is clear that the appellant, Mack, when he sustained his injuries, was a trespasser on the Railroad’s prop *406 erty, and that, as such, he was within the purview of N.J.S.A. 48:12-152 which, in substance, is a bar to recovery by trespassers, against a railroad, based upon the negligence of the latter. As the defendant Railroad conceded at pretrial, it cannot invoke the provisions of this statute if it wilfully and wantonly injured the plaintiff. Kowaleski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 3 Cir., 103 F.2d 827, certiorari denied 1939, 308 U.S. 556, 60 S.Ct. 95, 84 L.Ed. 467; Staub v. Public Service Railway Co., 1922, 97 N. J.L. 297, 300, 117 A. 48, 49; Egan v. Erie Railroad Co., 1959, 29 N.J. 243, 254, 148 A.2d 830, 836. We find no evidence in the record, however, that would have supported a finding that Mack sustained injuries because of wilful and wanton conduct on the part of the Railroad.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

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

Related

Potter v. Charles v. Finch & Sons
388 A.2d 614 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
283 F.2d 405, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 3494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claude-mack-v-lehigh-valley-railroad-company-ca3-1960.