DeBouvier v. Pennsylvania Railroad

107 A. 775, 264 Pa. 443, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 673
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 21, 1919
DocketAppeal, No. 299
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 A. 775 (DeBouvier v. Pennsylvania Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DeBouvier v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 107 A. 775, 264 Pa. 443, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 673 (Pa. 1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

While a passenger in a Pullman car attached to one of defendant’s trains, plaintiff saw an iron washer, weighing one pound, eleven ounces, come from the engine of another train, marked with defendant’s name, going in the opposite direction, on the next track; this washer crashed through the window at which plaintiff was sitting and struck him a violent blow in the back of the neck, causing serious injuries. He sued for damages, alleging negligence, and recovered a verdict, upon which judgment was entered. Defendant has appealed.

A properly qualified witness for plaintiff identified the washer as being part of a certain type of engine owned by defendant company; he also explained that washers of this character would fly off when the cotter pins which held them in place wore away, and that such wearing took place through vibration.

Defendant produced no evidence as to inspection, or upon any other point in the case, nor did it deny that the washer came from its engine; on'the contrary, the conductor in* charge of the train upon which plaintiff was riding testified that the article in question, produced at the trial, was the property of his employer.

The issues involved were submitted in a charge which is not complained of, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that plaintiff’s injury resulted from a break in an appliance connected with the operation of the defendant railroad; hence the question of negligence was for the jury: see Pa. R. R. Co. v. MacKinney, 124 Pa. 462, where the relevant rules of law are discussed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Scharf v. Pennsylvania Railroad
10 Pa. D. & C. 207 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A. 775, 264 Pa. 443, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debouvier-v-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1919.