McManigal ex rel. McManigal v. South Side Passenger Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

McManigal ex rel. McManigal v. South Side Passenger Railway Co.

37 A. 516, 181 Pa. 358, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 551

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 24, 1897

DocketAppeal, No. 38

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A. 516 (McManigal ex rel. McManigal v. South Side Passenger Railway 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

McManigal ex rel. McManigal v. South Side Passenger Railway Co., 37 A. 516, 181 Pa. 358, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 551 (Pa. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole question in this case is whether the court “ erred in refusing to set aside the judgment of compulsory nonsuit.”

A careful consideration of the testimony has failed to disclose any evidence that would have justified the court in setting aside the judgment. It conclusively appears by uncontradicted testimony that the collision, in which plaintiff was injured, was one of those unfortunate accidents which sometimes unavoidably occur without any apparent negligence on the part of anyone.' Plaintiff was driving northerly on Market street, South Williams-port, between defendant company’s track and the curbstone, while its car was approaching him on a down grade from the opposite direction. When the car was about ten feet from plaintiff’s horse, the latter suddenly sprang across the track in front of the car, and the collision was inevitable. It came without warning to either party; and, so far as shown by the testimony, nothing could have been done to avert it. On the ground, therefore, that there was no evidence of defendant company’s negligence to go to the jury, we are all of opinion that the motion to take off the judgment of nonsuit was rightly denied.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The sole question in this case is whether the court “ erred in refusing to set aside the judgment of compulsory nonsuit.”

A careful consideration of the testimony has failed to disclose any evidence that would have justified the court in setting aside the judgment. It conclusively appears by uncontradicted testimony that the collision, in which plaintiff was injured, was one of those unfortunate accidents which sometimes unavoidably occur without any apparent negligence on the part of anyone.' Plaintiff was driving northerly on Market street, South Williams-port, between defendant company’s track and the curbstone, while its car was approaching him on a down grade from the opposite direction. When the car was about ten feet from plaintiff’s horse, the latter suddenly sprang across the track in front of the car, and the collision was inevitable. It came without warning to either party; and, so far as shown by the testimony, nothing could have been done to avert it. On the ground, therefore, that there was no evidence of defendant company’s negligence to go to the jury, we are all of opinion that the motion to take off the judgment of nonsuit was rightly denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A. 516, 181 Pa. 358, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanigal-ex-rel-mcmanigal-v-south-side-passenger-railway-co-pa-1897.