Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.

27 A. 1008, 158 Pa. 419, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1604

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1893

DocketAppeal, No. 87

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A. 1008 (Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry.) 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

Wagner v. Pittsburgh & West End Pass. Ry., 27 A. 1008, 158 Pa. 419, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1604 (Pa. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

It is no doubt true that it was competent for defendant company to show that the injury complained of was due to the negligence of others; but, unfortunately for it, there was evidence that the repairs, out of which the injury grew, were under the immediate charge of its officers while the railway was in actual operation by the company. The public had a right, and, it appears, was accustomed to use the tracks in common with defendant; and, if the track was put in such a condition as to render it dangerous to public travel, it was the duty of those having charge to give adequate warning. Others may have been culpably negligent; but there was certainty evidence which justified submission of the question of defendant company’s negligence to the jury. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

It is no doubt true that it was competent for defendant company to show that the injury complained of was due to the negligence of others; but, unfortunately for it, there was evidence that the repairs, out of which the injury grew, were under the immediate charge of its officers while the railway was in actual operation by the company. The public had a right, and, it appears, was accustomed to use the tracks in common with defendant; and, if the track was put in such a condition as to render it dangerous to public travel, it was the duty of those having charge to give adequate warning. Others may have been culpably negligent; but there was certainty evidence which justified submission of the question of defendant company’s negligence to the jury. Neither of the specifications of error is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A. 1008, 158 Pa. 419, 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-pittsburgh-west-end-pass-ry-pa-1893.