Heister v. Fawn Township
This text of 42 A. 121 (Heister v. Fawn Township) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
According to all the evidence the road at the point where the, accident took place was smooth, level and of sufficient width for ordinary travel. The absence of a parapet or guard rail was not in any sense the proximate cause of the accident, though if one had been there the consequences might have been less serious. Even that however is entirely conjectural. But there was nothing in the occasion of the accident or the manner of its occurrence which the township could reasonably have been required to foresee and provide against. Further, if the township was bound to anticipate the conjuncture of circumstances which led to the accident, while they were in the future, and was negligent in not providing against their possible happening, the plaintiff must have been at least equally negligent in not guarding against them when they were present or imminent. But we prefer to rest the case on the absence of any sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 A. 121, 189 Pa. 253, 43 W.N.C. 389, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heister-v-fawn-township-pa-1899.