Case ID: pa_289/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kramer et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad, Appellant.
    
      Negligence — Railroads—Sparks—Case for jury — Appeals.
    1. A judgment on a verdict for plaintiff in an action against a railroad company for injuries alleged to have been caused by fire from sparks, will be affirmed, where the Supreme Court is of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the fire was caused by sparks or cinders from defendant’s engine.
    Submitted March 18, 1927.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Kepi-iart, Sadler and Schaffer, JJ.
    Appeal, No. 1, March T., 1927, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Armstrong Co., March T., 1925, No. 95, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of Norris D. Kramer et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for injuries to buildings by fire. Before Graff, P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,500. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v., quoting record.
    
      Harry G. Golden, for appellant.
    
      H. A. Heilman and Guy G. .Christy, for appellee.
    April 11, 1927:
   Per Curiam,

Plaintiffs, who own a farm in Armstrong County, obtained a verdict against defendant company because of injury to and destruction of their orchard and buildings through a fire alleged to have , been negligently caused by sparks from a passing locomotive on defendant’s line, Judgment was entered on a verdict for plaintiffs and this appeal followed.

The sole question involved is stated by appellant thus: “Is there sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the fire was caused by sparks or cinders from defendant’s engine?” After reading the evidence, we conclude that, under our authorities, this question must be answered in the affirmative, and since the law on the subject has been so often and so recently discussed by us, it would serve no useful purpose to go over it again at this time.

The judgment is affirmed.