Negligence — Municipalities— Obstruction in street — Infant.
A boy ten years of age is not entitled to recover damages from a municipality for personal injuries, where it appears that at the time of the accident he was running along side of a slowly moving train of cars with his hand on one of the cars, and that he stumbled over two Belgian blocks which liad been placed in the middle of a street crossing by the railroad company’s employees for the purpose of holding safety gates in place when opened.
Summary
Appeal, No. 390, Jan. T., 1897, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 8, Phila. Co., June T., 1895, No. 471, refusing to take off nonsuit.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
At the trial it appeared that plaintiff, a boy ten years old, was injured on March 80,1895, at the intersection of Seventeenth street and Pennsylvania avenue, in the city of Philadelphia.
At the point of the accident Pennsylvania avenue is occupied by the tracks of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad. The watchman of the railroad company had placed between the first and second tracks of the railroad at the Seventeenth street crossing two Belgian blocks, for the purpose of holding the safety gates in place when opened. Just before the accident plaintiff was playing below the corner of Seventeenth street when a slowly moving train of gondola cars passed, and plaintiff saw a boy riding on one of the cars. The boy called to-plaintiff who ran over towards him, touched the car with his hand, ran along with the ear and, as he crossed Seventeenth street, fell over the blocks, and his hand was crushed under the wheels of the car.
The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from the judgment of the court below refusing to take off' the nonsuit ordered at the trial.
We have carefully considered the evidence, and are all of opinion that it is insufficient to warrant the submission of plaintiff’s case to a jury, and hence the court was right in refusing to take off the nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.
Authorities cited 0
No citations to other opinions in this database were found.
