Johnson v. Chester Traction Co.
This text of 58 A. 153 (Johnson v. Chester Traction Co.) 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
The court below entered a nonsuit on the ground of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Such negligence was plain.
But in addition to this there was no evidence on which the jury could have been permitted to find negligence of the defendant that caused the accident. The plaintiff being drunk and disorderly was put off the car, fell but arose at once and ran after the car. When the car got beyond sight of him he was still running. The proximate cause of the accident therefore was not his ejection from the car, and the case must be treated without regard to 'that feature. After plaintiff was ejected the car had continued its journey to the station a mile or more away, and on the return trip ran against him while he was lying on the track in the dark, and about 600 feet from the point where he had been ejected.
Plaintiff endeavored to. prove negligence of the company by showing the schedule time allowed for the car trip, and also the distance at which the headlight would enable the motorman to see an object on the track ahead of him. The offers were general and none of them was sufficiently connected by circumstances stated, to make it evidence of negligence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 A. 153, 209 Pa. 189, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-chester-traction-co-pa-1904.