Kannenberg v. Conestoga Traction Co.

64 A. 680, 215 Pa. 555, 1906 Pa. LEXIS 846
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 24, 1906·No. Appeal, No. 304·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff was riding in a closed laundry wagon going in the direction in which the cars ran, and the only precaution he took before crossing the tracks was to stop and look back when twenty-five or thirty feet from the crossing. He then drove on slowly and without looking again turned across the tracks, and was struck by a car which he could have seen if he had looked again before turning or when at the edge of the tracks. He disregarded a duty established by an unbroken line of decisions on the subject extending from Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Railway Co., 150 Pa. 180, to Moser v. Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 481.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Kannenberg v. Conestoga Traction Co., 64 A. 680, 215 Pa. 555, 1906 Pa. LEXIS 846 (Pa. 1906).

64 A. 680 (Kannenberg v. Conestoga Traction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bridgman Realty Corp. v. Philadelphia
177 A. 45 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1935)
Bane v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
90 A. 201 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Spring Valley Waterworks v. City & County of San Francisco
192 F. 137 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1911)