Duff v. Allegheny Valley Railroad

91 Pa. 458, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 370
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 3, 1879·No. No. 124·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Per Curiam.

This was an action by a parent to recover damages for the death of her son on account of the alleged negligence of the defendants. It is clear, from the evidence, that the boy was on the train from day to day, not as a passenger or employee of the company, but by the connivance of the conductor, in order to sell newspapers. It is not like a person allowed by the conductor to ride in a car as a passenger without paying fare. In that case [462]*462there is a legal liability to the company for the fare. This is the case of a mere trespasser, and the company owed him no duty. We are of opinion that the rulings of the learned judge below were right.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Duff v. Allegheny Valley Railroad, 91 Pa. 458, 1879 Pa. LEXIS 370 (Pa. 1879).

91 Pa. 458 (Duff v. Allegheny Valley Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dattola Et Ux. v. Burt Bros., Inc.
135 A. 736 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Berkebile v. Johnstown Traction Co.
99 A. 871 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dees
1914 OK 508 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stone
1912 OK 538 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Feehan v. Dobson
10 Pa. Super. 6 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1899)
Rodgers v. Lees
21 A. 399 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1891)
McMullen v. Pennsylvania R.
19 A. 27 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1890)