Case Name: Martin Mulcahy and Catharine Mulcahy, his Wife, v. The Electric Traction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1898-04-11
Citations: 185 Pa. 427
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 298
Parties: Martin Mulcahy and Catharine Mulcahy, his Wife, v. The Electric Traction Company.
Judges: Before Gbeen, Williams, Mitchell, Dean and Pell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
Martin Mulcahy and Catharine Mulcahy, his Wife, v. The Electric Traction Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Infant.
In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs’ son, sixteen years old, a nonsuit is properly entered where it appears that the accident was occasioned by the boy suddenly running against the car, or upon the track immediately in front of the ear, before the motorman could stop it.
Argued March 28, 1898.
Appeal, No. 298, Jan. T., 1897, by-plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1895, No. 364, refusing to take off nonsuit.
Before Gbeen, Williams, Mitchell, Dean and Pell, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs’ son. Before Finlettek, P. J.
At the trial it appeared that on January 13, 1895, plaintiffs’ son, a boy sixteen years old, with several other boys, was running east on the north side of Bainbridge street, in the city of Philadelphia. As they approached Tenth street they saw a car going south on that street. Plaintiffs’ son checked his speed, but continued on, and either ran into the front corner of the car, or on the track immediately in front of the car. He was struck and killed. The second boy struck the side of the car, but saved himself by throwing up his hands against the side. The motorman had his hands upon the brake and lever; he was at the moment looking eastward; the car was stopped in about four feet. The trial judge directed a nonsuit, which the court in banc refused to take off.
Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
W. Horace Hepburn, for appellants,
cited Shearman and Red-field on Negligence, sec. 28; Penna. R. R. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60; Lake Shore, etc., Ry. v. Frantz, 127 Pa. 297; Haney v. Traction Co., 159 Pa. 395; Connor v. Traction Co., 173 Pa. 602.
Dallas Sanders and Thomas Learning, for appellee,
were not heard, but cited in their printed brief: Thomas v. Citizens’ Pass. Ry., 132 Pa. 504; Johnson v. Reading City Pass. Ry., 160 Pa. 647; Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain R. R., 174 Pa. 510; Nagle v. Allegheny Valley R. R., 88 Pa. 35; Kehler v. Schwenk, 144 Pa. 348; Buzby v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 126 Pa. 559; Harris v. Commercial Ice Co., 153 Pa. 278; Nugent v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 181 Pa. 160; Blaney v. Electric Traction Co., 39 Atl. Rep. 294; Penna. R. R. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60.
April 11, 1898:

Opinion:
Per, Curiam,
It was clearly established by the testimony of the plaintiffs that the accident was occasioned by the boy suddenly running against the car, or upon the track immediately in front of the car. He was sixteen years of age, and responsible for his acts. There was no opportunity for the motorman to prevent the collision, and in such circumstances, as we have many times held, there can be no recovery.
Judgment affirmed.