Case ID: pa_213/html/0114-01.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

Sontgen, Appellant, v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway.
    
      Negligence — Street railways — Infants—Nonsuit.
    In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for the death of a child five years old, run over by a car, a nonsuit is properly entered, where the only witness who saw the accident testified that the child was playing behind a pile of earth about five or six feet from the track and suddenly ran out on the track when the car was not more than four feet away.
    Argued Oct. 11, 1905.
    Appeal, No. 166, Oct. T., 1905, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Armstrong Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 4, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Paul Henry Sontgen v. Kittanning & Ford City Street Railway Company.
    
      Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for the death of a child five years old.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    
      Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
    
      B,. A. McCullough, with him II. A. Heilman and J. H Daugherty, for appellant.
    
      Ross Reynolds, with him James II. M.c Cain and. W. J. Christy, for appellee.
    October 30, 1905 :
   Per Curiam,

The evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant. The only witness called who saw the accident testified that the child was playing behind a pile of earth about five or six feet from the track and suddenly ran out on the track when the car was not more than four feet away. The case belongs to the class of Chilton v. Central Traction Co., 152 Pa. 425 ; Funk v. Electric Traction Co., 175 Pa. 559; Kline v. Electric Traction Co., 181 Pa. 276 ; Callary v. Easton Transit Co., 185 Pa. 176, and Miller v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 639.

As this is decisive of the whole case the other questions do not require notice.

Judgment affirmed.