Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain Railroad
34 A. 119, 174 Pa. 510, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 915
Opinion
We agree with the learned court below in their views of this ease. There is no evidence of negligence on the part of the motorman. He could not anticipate the sudden action of the child in attempting to cross the track immediately in front of the car, and his failure to do so is not negligence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain Railroad, 34 A. 119, 174 Pa. 510, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 915 (Pa. 1896).
34 A. 119 (Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Crone v. Harrisburg Railways Co.
143 A. 108 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Kent v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
2 Pa. D. & C. 702 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Camden Interstate Ry. Co. v. Broom
139 F. 595 (Sixth Circuit, 1905)
Rack v. Chicago City Railway Co.
69 Ill. App. 656 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1897)