Wysochansky v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad

Third Circuit

Wysochansky v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad

174 F.2d 933, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2309

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 9, 1949

DocketNo. 9835

StatusPublished

This text of 174 F.2d 933 (Wysochansky v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wysochansky v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad, 174 F.2d 933, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2309 (3d Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case it appears that the plaintiff’s decedent, disregarding the safety gates which were, at the time lowered to bar traffic from a public crossing over the defendant’s tracks, went onto the crossing in broad daylight and was struck and killed by the defendant’s locomotive which was approaching from a direction where it had been clearly visible for a distance of over a quarter of a mile. The district court dismissed the action at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon the ground that the plaintiff’s decedent had been shown to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In so ruling the court correctly applied the applicable law. Cleary v. Philadelphia & Railroad Co., 1891, 140 Pa. 19, 21 A. 242; Sheehan v. Philadelphia Railroad Co., 1895, 166 Pa. 354, 31 A. 120; Ellis v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 1907, 216 Pa. 415, 65 A. 803; Hamilton v. Central R. R., 1910, 227 Pa. 137, 75 A. 1058; Witi-ak v. Deleware & Hudson R. R. Corporation, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 379. The district court also held that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was negligent. We need not pass upon, this question, however, except to say that upon no theory was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case it appears that the plaintiff’s decedent, disregarding the safety gates which were, at the time lowered to bar traffic from a public crossing over the defendant’s tracks, went onto the crossing in broad daylight and was struck and killed by the defendant’s locomotive which was approaching from a direction where it had been clearly visible for a distance of over a quarter of a mile. The district court dismissed the action at the close of the plaintiff’s case upon the ground that the plaintiff’s decedent had been shown to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In so ruling the court correctly applied the applicable law. Cleary v. Philadelphia & Railroad Co., 1891, 140 Pa. 19, 21 A. 242; Sheehan v. Philadelphia Railroad Co., 1895, 166 Pa. 354, 31 A. 120; Ellis v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 1907, 216 Pa. 415, 65 A. 803; Hamilton v. Central R. R., 1910, 227 Pa. 137, 75 A. 1058; Witi-ak v. Deleware & Hudson R. R. Corporation, 3 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 379. The district court also held that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was negligent. We need not pass upon, this question, however, except to say that upon no theory was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the defendant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.2d 933, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wysochansky-v-delaware-hudson-railroad-ca3-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack