Levin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad

77 A. 456, 228 Pa. 266, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 468
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 16, 1910·No. Appeal, No. 84·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

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] Levin 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

Levin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, 77 A. 456, 228 Pa. 266, 1910 Pa. LEXIS 468 (Pa. 1910).

77 A. 456 (Levin v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krause v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
202 N.W. 345 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Monaghan v. Equitable Life Insurance
184 Iowa 352 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Gould v. Atlantic City Railroad
68 Pa. Super. 431 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)
Hunt v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
181 Iowa 845 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Lee Line Steamers v. Robinson
218 F. 559 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)