Case Name: Jackson, Appellant, v. United Traction Company
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1901-07-25
Citations: 18 Pa. Super. 211
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 165
Parties: Jackson, Appellant, v. United Traction Company.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, J J.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 211–215

Head Matter:
Jackson, Appellant, v. United Traction Company.
Negligence — Street railway — Collision between car and wagon.
In an action to recover for the loss of a horse and damages to a wagon resulting from a head on collision between an electric car and the wagon, it appeared that the collision occurred on a rainy night at a point where there were two tracks of the defendant company. Plaintiff’s wagon which was heavily loaded with lumber, and of unusual length, was on the left-hand track going against the course of the cars. The wagon was drawn by four horses and was accompanied by two men and a boy of sixteen. One of the men was driving the horses. In attempting to turn out from the left track the-wheels became looked, and the wagon was dragged with the horses at an angle to the right, for a distance of some S50 feet, when it was struck by an approaching car which had its headlight burning. At the time of the accident the second man accompanying the wagon was engaged in seeking something with which to throw the wagon wheels from the tracks. It did not appear what the boy was doing. The uncontradicted testimony of the motorman was that an electric light was hung over the street in such a way that he was unable to see the wagon until after passing the light. There was no light upon the wagon. There was evidence that the detention of the wagon on the track was caused in part at least by tbe worn condition of its tires. The evidence also showed that the man in charge of the wagon saw the approaching car, but gave no warning to the motorman. Held, that the plaintiffs’ employees were guilty of contributory negligence, and that the court committed no error in giving binding instructions for defendant.
Rice, P. J. and Orlady, J., dissented.
Argued May 11, 1901.
July 25, 1901 :
Appeal, No. 165, April T., 1901, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1900, No. 168, on verdict for defendant in case of F. T. Jackson and W. J. Fulton, trading as Jackson & Fulton, v. United Traction Company.
Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, J J.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover for the loss of a horse and damages to a wagon. Before Brown, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court gave binding instructions for defendant.
"Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant.
J. M. Swearingen, for appellants.
E. W. Smith, with him Knox & Reed and J. II. Beal, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
It is not necessary to pass upon the adequacy of the testimony in respect to the speed of the car which collided with the plaintiff's wagon, to prove negligence upon the part of the motorman. There is sufficient in the evidence, to sustain the verdict (directed to be rendered for the defendant), upon the ground of contributory negligence. The collision between the car and the lumber wagon took place about eleven o'clock upon a rainy night. The collision was what is sometimes called " head on." There were two tracks upon the street. The plaintiff's wagon was on the left-hand track going against the course of the cars.
The vehicle was somewhat unusual in its length and unwieldiness. It was heavily loaded with lumber. It was drawn by two wheel and two lead horses. It drew into Fifth avenue and in making the turn from Cliff street was compelled to swing across the avenue. There, getting upon the left-hand track, the testimony shows that the driver was unable to pull out and across to the right-hand track. This he says was because of the slipperiness of the tracks due to rain and the rounding of the wheel tires by previous wear. The wheels becoming locked the wagon was dragged, with the horses at an angle to the right, for a distance of some 350 feet, when it was struck by an approaching car which had its headlight burning. The wagon was accompanied by two men and a boy of sixteen. One of the former was driving the horses, the other was apparently seeking something with which to throw the wagon wheels from the tracks. What the boy was doing when the accident took place does not appear, although it was he who was sent in advance to see that the turning from Cliff street into Fifth avenue might be safely made. It is said that the street was lighted by electricity, but the testimony of the motorman is not contradicted that the light was hung over the street and between him and the wagon so that he was unable to see the wagon until after passing the light. The circumstances which convict the plaintiff's servants of negligence are that they had no light upon their wagon ; that with three persons in charge on finding themselves in a position of danger they sent no one in advance to warn an approaching car, although this act of caution had been performed when making the turn into Fifth avenue; that seeing the car approaching they continued to drive toward it without warning the motorman of their plight; that their detention upon the track of cars having the right of way, was caused in part at least by the worn condition of the tires of their wagon, and that, having a wagon longer than common drawn by an extended four horse team, they failed to exercise the care in its management which its peculiar character and condition demanded.
The judgment is affirmed.