Weber v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

100 A. 992, 256 Pa. 595, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 666
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 26, 1917·No. Appeal, No. 256·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

While there is some difference in the recollection of the witnesses in this case as to the actual facts, they all agree that the collision occurred almost immediately after the deceased attempted to drive on the track, and the correct conclusion of the court below was that, if he had looked, as it was his duty to do, he would have seen the car running rapidly towards him, so close to where he was about to cross as to have made it contributory negligence on his part to attempt to take the risk. For this reason the judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto is affirmed.

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

Weber v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 100 A. 992, 256 Pa. 595, 1917 Pa. LEXIS 666 (Pa. 1917).

100 A. 992 (Weber v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walker v. Reading Transit & Light Co.
95 Pa. Super. 461 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Kilpatrick v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
138 A. 830 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Patton v. George
131 A. 245 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Barton v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co.
129 A. 585 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Griffith v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
110 A. 76 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)
Kerr v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
69 Pa. Super. 112 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1918)
Moses v. Northwestern Pennsylvania Railway Co.
102 A. 166 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1917)