Case ID: pa_201/html/0169-01.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

Nolder v. McKeesport, Wilmerding & Duquense Railway Company, Appellant.
    
      Negligence—Street railways—Infant of tender age—Speed.
    
    In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries to a child four years old, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence tends to show that the child started to cross the street where she was injured, when the car was at least 100 feet away, that she was in plain view of the motorman who could readily have seen her in time to have stopped the car, and that the car was going, by the evidence of the motorman himself, at the rate that full power would take it.
    
      Argued Oct. 30, 1901.
    Appeal, Nos. 46 and 47, Oct. T., by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., July T., 1899, No. 568, on verdict for plaintiff in case of A. S. Nolder in his own right and as father and next friend of Anna Bell Nolder v. McKeesport, Wilmerding & Duquense Railway Company.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Brown and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a child four years old. Before Shaeer, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $550 and $2,250, respectively. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant. '
    
      William S. Dalzell, with him William Scott and George B, Gordon, for appellant.
    
      T. O. Jones, and J. O. Boyer, for appellees, were not heard.
    January 6, 1902:
   Per Curiam,

No error was committed by the court in the submission of the case to the jury. There was evidence showing that the car was moving at an unusual rate of speed. The motorman referring to it on cross-examination said, “We were going at the rate that full power takes us,” “ and were going as fast as the car could go.” There was also testimony showing that the child started to cross the street when the car was at least 100 feet away and when she was in plain view of the motorman who could readily have seen her in time to have stopped the car. See Kroesen v. New Castle Electric St. Ry. Co., 198 Pa. 26.

Judgment affirmed.