The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-08-14
JUDGE KELLY's OPINION IN
THE POTTER CASE.
Under the Law of Pennsylvania He
Says That Before Person Crosses
the Tracks of q Trolley Company
They Must Stop at the Edge of the
Track and Look Both Ways-Facts
on Which the the Suit for Damages
Against the Scranton Railway
Company Was Based

/ tne scranton halfway 'oHlpdIS' III
which the rule to show cause why
judgment shoud not be entered in ia
vor of the defendant non obstantc
veredcto is made absolute. The opin-
| ion follows:
The plaintiffs in this case. at the
time of the accident complained or.
were engaged in the hutchcring busi-
ness i'm the borough of DunmOre. ON
the morning of the 10th of October,
| 1899, Charles Potter, one Of the plain
| tiffS, was going about with Il team OF
| horses and "A covered butcher wagon
| serving his customers, and had oCca-
| sion to cross North Washington ave-
| nue upon which the defendant COM
pany operated a street railway, nav
! ing single track located In the center
of the street. lie was driving from the
eastcrly side towards the westerly. and
! n short distance away from North
| Washington avenue got upon Rich
mont avenue which intcrscCts North
| Washington avenue at right angles.
| While attempting to cross, and when
| his off horse got one foot inside the
| first rail, he discovered car APP
preaching from a northcrly direction
| coming down steep grade at high
| rate of speed, according to his tCst
mony, and fearing he would not be
able to get across in safety. he pulled
| his left rain in an effort to get his
| horse off the track, but, although he
succeeded in getting the horses front
| foot out from between the rails, he
did not get far nough away, and the
horse was struck in the rump, knocked
| under the car, and killed.
CARELESSNEss CHARGED.
The other horse was severely injured,
the wagon and the harness damagd,
| and the Plaintiffs alleging that the ac-
| of the defendants servants instituted
| this suit to rCover for the damages
sustained. The case was submitted to
| the jury subject to a point reserved,
viz, whether there was an violence in
the case upon which the plaintiffs were
entitled to recover. verdict was
| rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and
a rule was entered to show cause why
| judgment should not be entered in IA
NOr of the defendant Notwithstanding
| the verdict
We are of opinion that there was
sufficient evidence i'm the case To Sus-
tain finding that the defendant was
| guilty of negligence. and therefore the
question of the Contributory ncgli-
| EcnCc of Charles Potter. who had
charge Of the team at the time of the
| accident, is the one now to be ConSid-
cred. This qustiOn must be disposed
of on the testimony of Charles Potter
| construction Of which it is susceptible
| in the plaintiffs favor.
| North Washington avenue runs praC-
tically north and south, RiChmont east
and west. crossing North Washington
| avenue at right angles. There is a
steep grade on North Washington ave-
nue. towards Richmont for "a distance
| of about two hundred feet. The accident
| happened in the daytime, and there
| Wcr" no other teams or Instructions
of any kind in the vicinity al the time
Of the collision. Mr.. Potter was about
! to cross the track at the intersection
of the streets AT the time his horse
was struck, going in westerly dircC-
! tlOm.
STARTED TO CROSS TRACK.
According to his testimony, giving
when he got to point twenty or thir
| ty feet from tho street ear track, he
stopped his team and looked to see
| whether Il car was approaching from
| the north. and looked down to sec IL
one was approaching from the south
and seeing no ears in either direction,
he started on to cross the track with
| his horses on q walk, and when his off
| horse got his right front foot inside the
| rail he heard "A whistle and looked up
and saw the car approaching from over
| the hill. He Immediately pulled tO the
ltIl, bul ull llbl Sllttttl III StllIllS 'ul
of the way, and the horse was struck
as already stated. After leaving the
point where he stopped, twenty or thir-
! ty feet away from the track, he did not
look in the direction from which the
car came until his horse had one foot
upon the track; he could see the ap-
| prOaCh of the car for distance of
sixty-fve PAGES, about 200 feet.
| Under these circumstances he was
| guilty of COntributory negligence, as
we understand the law, as laid down
by our supreme court. In Ehrishman
vs.. Harrisburg. etc, Railway Co, $50
! Pa. $50. ii is laid down as an unbondinG
rule to be observed at all times that
one who is about to drive across a
street railway track must look in both
| directions for the approach of a car
| when he gets to the edge of the track,
and just before he crosses. Mr.. Jus
ticc PaXson, in delivering the opinion
of the court in that case, says:
THE rule to stop, look and listen is
applicable in part. al least, to cross
ing street railways. \ person driving
a vehicle has but to use his eyes TO
avoid such accidents. There is no
danger. as in the case of steam roads,
of stopping a horse at the very edge
of the track. When, therefore, n citi-
zen attempts to cross such track, il is
his duty when he reaches il tn look in
both directions for an approaching car.
1t very rarely, II 1t ever happens, that
the street is so ObstruCted that the
| car may not be seen as the citizen APP
proaches the track. 1t is his duty to
look at that point, and IL there is any
obstruction, to listen. and his neglect
to do so is negligence per Sc. This is
an unbcnding rule To be observed at all
times, and under all circumstances. In
the case of steam roads, a question
sometimes arises as To the proper
place TO stop, look and listen. Where
| there is a fair doubt upon this question
We have held that it must be sub
mltted to a jury. But no such question
arises in the case of city railways. If
the citizen looks just before he crosses,
he avoids all danger of accident"
WAS NEGLIGENT.
Applying this principle to the pres
ent case the plaintifi, Charles Potter,
did not take such precaution Just be-
fore he attempted to cross as the law
requires, and under the authority
above cited he was guilty of negligence
per Sc. If the car was 200 feet away
from him when his horse had but one
foot over the rail, there could be no
question but that he could have pulled
back in time to avoid being struck, un-
less there was something unsual to
CI~'. ~. CI7n1