Mitchell v. Phila. W. & B. R.
This text of 19 A. 28 (Mitchell v. Phila. W. & B. R.) 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
We are of opinion that the compulsory nonsuit in this case was entirely justified by the evidence. The plaintiff, at the time he was injured, was between nine and ten years of age. He was not upon the railroad at any public crossing, or any place where he had a right to be. He was a mere trespasser. He was walking between the tracks; and, to avoid some water lying there, stepped upon the end of the ties, and was struck by a car after he had walked about three steps. This is his own account of the accident, and we need go no further. The car was a low, unloaded brick car, without an engine attached; and, if the man on the car saw plaintiff at all, he could hardly have anticipated that the boy would step on the track just in front of the moving cars. Much as we regret the accident, we cannot hold the railroad company responsible, unless we lay down the broad principle that for every accident involving injury to life and limb some one must make compensation.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 A. 28, 132 Pa. 226, 1890 Pa. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-phila-w-b-r-pa-1890.