Kramer v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kramer v. Pennsylvania Railroad

137 A. 926, 289 Pa. 215, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 548

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 18, 1927

DocketAppeal, 1

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A. 926 (Kramer v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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.

Bluebook

Kramer v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 137 A. 926, 289 Pa. 215, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 548 (Pa. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, who own a farm in Armstrong County, obtained a verdict against defendant company because of injury to and destruction of their orchard and buildings through a fire alleged to have , been negligently caused by sparks from a passing locomotive on defendant’s line, *216 Judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiffs and this appeal followed.

The sole question involved is stated by appellant thus: “Is there sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the fire was caused by sparks or cinders from defendant’s engine?” After reading the evidence, we conclude that, under our authorities, this question must be answered in the affirmative, and since the law on the subject has been so often and so recently discussed by us, it would serve no useful purpose to go over it again at this time.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, who own a farm in Armstrong County, obtained a verdict against defendant company because of injury to and destruction of their orchard and buildings through a fire alleged to have , been negligently caused by sparks from a passing locomotive on defendant’s line, *216 Judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiffs and this appeal followed.

The sole question involved is stated by appellant thus: “Is there sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the fire was caused by sparks or cinders from defendant’s engine?” After reading the evidence, we conclude that, under our authorities, this question must be answered in the affirmative, and since the law on the subject has been so often and so recently discussed by us, it would serve no useful purpose to go over it again at this time.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A. 926, 289 Pa. 215, 1927 Pa. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1927.