Levin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad
This text of 77 A. 456 (Levin v. Philadelphia & Reading 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.
Opinion
Nothing happened to the car on which the plaintiffs were riding. There was no injury to it, no collision nor breakage of anything. There was, therefore, no presumption of negligence: Herstine v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 151 Pa. 244; Cline v. Pittsburg Railways Co., 226 Pa. 586. Whether the negligence set out in plaintiffs’ statement as the cause of the injuries sustained by Esther [268]*268Levin was proven, or whether the same were due to a jolt of the car incident to the stopping of the train at the station, would, under the testimony of the injured plaintiff and her husband, have been a mere guess by the jury. She said that when the conductor announced the station and she tried to put her foot out, “one train struck the other train and I fell.” His testimony was that in one second one car pulled another. As the jury could not intelligently have found from the case as presented by the plaintiffs that the defendant was negligent, the judgment on the verdict directed in its favor is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
77 A. 456, 228 Pa. 266, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levin-v-philadelphia-reading-railroad-pa-1910.