Siderio v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Siderio v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

92 Pa. Super. 193, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 295

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 12, 1927

DocketAppeals 201, 202

StatusPublished

This text of 92 Pa. Super. 193 (Siderio v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siderio v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 92 Pa. Super. 193, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 295 (Pa. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Plaintiff walking eastward after dark on the north side of Wharton Street, while crossing Eleventh Street, was struck by a street car moving northward on Eleventh 'Street. She says she looked south before stepping into the cart way, and that then she saw an approaching street car which she thought was about a square away. She testified: “When I got to the first rail I stopped and looked, but could not see anything on account of the machines coming, and then I crossed over.” She added that an automobile on her right was traveling eastward on Wharton Street, thus apparently shutting off her view of the approaching street car. Before she got across the track she was struck by the street car. It was contributory negligence to attempt to cross the tracks in such circumstances, and it is equally clear that if her view of the car which she knew was approaching was cut off by the automobile, the motorman’s opportunity of seeing her was likewise cut off by. the automobile; there is no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. The non-suit was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

Plaintiff walking eastward after dark on the north side of Wharton Street, while crossing Eleventh Street, was struck by a street car moving northward on Eleventh 'Street. She says she looked south before stepping into the cart way, and that then she saw an approaching street car which she thought was about a square away. She testified: “When I got to the first rail I stopped and looked, but could not see anything on account of the machines coming, and then I crossed over.” She added that an automobile on her right was traveling eastward on Wharton Street, thus apparently shutting off her view of the approaching street car. Before she got across the track she was struck by the street car. It was contributory negligence to attempt to cross the tracks in such circumstances, and it is equally clear that if her view of the car which she knew was approaching was cut off by the automobile, the motorman’s opportunity of seeing her was likewise cut off by. the automobile; there is no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. The non-suit was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Pa. Super. 193, 1927 Pa. Super. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siderio-v-philadelphia-rapid-transit-co-pasuperct-1927.