Coleman v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Street Railway Co.

96 A. 1051, 251 Pa. 498, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 492
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 3, 1916·No. Appeal, No. 60·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The machinery of the automobile in which the plaintiff below was riding got out of order, and it stopped about midnight on one of the tracks of the defendant company. The night was foggy and very dark. After nearly an hour’s effort to push the automobile off the track, the chauffeur, remembering that a car of the defendant company was about due, went back along the track for some distance for the purpose of stopping it; but, after making all proper efforts to do so, failed. During this time the appellant first got out of the automobile and then went back into it. She admitted that she knew it was still upon the street railway track. While in it the car of the defendant, which the appellant’s chauffeur tried to stop, struck the automobile, and she was injured. A clearer case of contributory negligence is not to be well imagined, and the learned court below correctly so concluded in ordering judgment to be entered for the defendant, non obstante veredicto.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Coleman v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Street Railway Co., 96 A. 1051, 251 Pa. 498, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 492 (Pa. 1916).

96 A. 1051 (Coleman v. Pittsburgh, Harmony, Butler & New Castle Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Guca v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
80 A.2d 779 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951)
Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
53 A.2d 830 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Jacobs v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
26 A.2d 442 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1942)
Schlossstein Et Ux. v. Bernstein
142 A. 324 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Kilpatrick v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
138 A. 830 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)