Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway

62 A. 523, 213 Pa. 114, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 385
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 30, 1905·No. Appeal, No. 166·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. The only witness called who saw the accident testified that the child was playing behind a pile of earth about five or six feet from the track and suddenly ran out on the track when the car was not more than four feet away. The case belongs to the class of Chilton v. Central Traction Co., 152 Pa. 425 ; Funk v. Electric Traction Co., 175 Pa. 559; Kline v. Electric Traction Co., 181 Pa. 276 ; Callary v. Easton Transit Co., 185 Pa. 176, and Miller v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 639.

As this is decisive of the whole case the other questions do not require notice.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway, 62 A. 523, 213 Pa. 114, 1905 Pa. LEXIS 385 (Pa. 1905).

62 A. 523 (Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tracey v. Hoffman
4 Pa. D. & C. 630 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1923)
Frank v. Allegheny Valley Street Railway Co.
58 Pa. Super. 544 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Myers v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
89 A. 577 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1914)
Tatarewicz v. United Traction Co.
69 A. 995 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Meloy v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
66 A. 253 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)
Keller v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
63 A. 413 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1906)