Mooney v. Pennsylvania Railroad
This text of 52 A. 191 (Mooney v. Pennsylvania 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
Unless we hold that the defendant company is responsible for the effect on the plaintiff of the “York State cider” and Nanticoke gin consumed by him on the day of the accident, we must sustain this nonsuit. They, and not the negligence of the defendant, were the cause of his injuries. There was no evidence whatever that the bridge was defectively constructed as alleged by the plaintiff, nor that his injuries were occasioned by the negligence of the defendant company. The nonsuit was properly entered by the court below and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 A. 191, 203 Pa. 222, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mooney-v-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1902.