Summary
In Everetts v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 330 Pa. 321, 198 A. 796, this Court in a per curiam opinion adopted the following from the opinion of the court below: " 'The undisputed evidence proves that this crossing was actually occupied by the train of the defendant company when the lights of the automobile first brought it into view. Although this crossing must be considered dangerous in some respects, yet this evidence brings the case clearly within the ruling of Wink et al. v. Western Maryland R.R. Co., 116 Pa. Super. 374.
Summary of this case from Hogg v. Bessemer & Lake Erie RailroadOpinion
March 22, 1938.
April 18, 1938.
Wink v. Western Maryland Railway Company, 116 Pa. Super. 374, followed.
Argued March 22, 1938.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 107, March T., 1938, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1936, No. 6, in case of Elsie Emma Everetts v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for wrongful death. Before GRAFF, P. J.
Verdict for plaintiff in sum of $10,000. Judgment entered for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was judgment n. o. v.
Charles E. Harrington, with him William A. Ashe, for appellant.
Harry C. Golden, for appellee.
We adopt the following from the opinion of the court below: "The undisputed evidence proves that this crossing was actually occupied by the train of the defendant company when the lights of the automobile first brought it into view. Although this crossing must be considered dangerous in some respects, yet this evidence brings the case clearly within the ruling of Wink et al. v. Western Maryland R. R. Co., 116 Pa. Super. 374. There, under facts similar to those now under consideration, the Court held that there was no evidence to sustain a finding that the defendant was guilty of negligence," and affirm the judgment.