Confer v. New York etc. R. Co.

Venango County Court of Common Pleas

Confer v. New York etc. R. Co.

23 A. 202, 146 Pa. 31, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1188

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Venango County

DecidedJanuary 4, 1892

DocketNo. 133

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A. 202 (Confer v. New York etc. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Venango County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Confer v. New York etc. R. Co., 23 A. 202, 146 Pa. 31, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1188 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

While this is perhaps a close case upon its facts, we are of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed. It could not have been withdrawn from the jury, nor are we able to see any error in the manner of its submission. The learned judge could not have ruled, as a question of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in erecting his oil tank where he did. The sparks from the locomotive were not likely to set fire to the oil in the tank, nor did they do so in this case. The accident would not probably have occurred, had not the defendant company permitted a car, used for carrying tar, to stand on the track opposite to and near plaintiff’s oil tank. This car caught fire from the sparks of the engine, and was wholly or partly consumed. It was the fire from this car which ignited the oil, and caused the destruction of plaintiff’s works. The accident could have been -avoided by running the car a short distance away after it had taken fire. This was eminently a jury case.

Judgment affirmed.

On February 8, 1892, a motion for a re-argument was refused.

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

Per Curiam:

While this is perhaps a close case upon its facts, we are of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed. It could not have been withdrawn from the jury, nor are we able to see any error in the manner of its submission. The learned judge could not have ruled, as a question of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in erecting his oil tank where he did. The sparks from the locomotive were not likely to set fire to the oil in the tank, nor did they do so in this case. The accident would not probably have occurred, had not the defendant company permitted a car, used for carrying tar, to stand on the track opposite to and near plaintiff’s oil tank. This car caught fire from the sparks of the engine, and was wholly or partly consumed. It was the fire from this car which ignited the oil, and caused the destruction of plaintiff’s works. The accident could have been -avoided by running the car a short distance away after it had taken fire. This was eminently a jury case.

Judgment affirmed.

On February 8, 1892, a motion for a re-argument was refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A. 202, 146 Pa. 31, 1892 Pa. LEXIS 1188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/confer-v-new-york-etc-r-co-pactcomplvenang-1892.