McCleary v. Pittsburg Railways Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McCleary v. Pittsburg Railways Co.

86 A. 78, 238 Pa. 253, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 952

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 6, 1913

DocketAppeal, No. 175

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A. 78 (McCleary v. Pittsburg Railways 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.

Bluebook

McCleary v. Pittsburg Railways Co., 86 A. 78, 238 Pa. 253, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 952 (Pa. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The complaint of the appellant is that the court below failed to take the case from the jury. As the deceased child was barely six years of age, no question arose as to its contributory negligence, and the sole question was as to the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its car. It was running on Jefferson avenue, in the town of Washington, and the motorman had a clear and unobstructed view of that avenue for a distance of one thousand feet as he approached the point of collision. There was testimony that the car was running at an undue and dangerous rate of speed, and, under all the evidence, it was for the jury to say whether the collision was due to the negligence of the motorman in running his car too rapidly or in not carefully looking ahead of him as the unfortunate child started to cross over Jefferson avenue before the car had reached intersecting Hall avenue. Both assignments are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The complaint of the appellant is that the court below failed to take the case from the jury. As the deceased child was barely six years of age, no question arose as to its contributory negligence, and the sole question was as to the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its car. It was running on Jefferson avenue, in the town of Washington, and the motorman had a clear and unobstructed view of that avenue for a distance of one thousand feet as he approached the point of collision. There was testimony that the car was running at an undue and dangerous rate of speed, and, under all the evidence, it was for the jury to say whether the collision was due to the negligence of the motorman in running his car too rapidly or in not carefully looking ahead of him as the unfortunate child started to cross over Jefferson avenue before the car had reached intersecting Hall avenue. Both assignments are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A. 78, 238 Pa. 253, 1913 Pa. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccleary-v-pittsburg-railways-co-pa-1913.