Case Name: Kannenberg, Appellant, v. Conestoga Traction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1906-05-24
Citations: 215 Pa. 555
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 304
Parties: Kannenberg, Appellant, v. Conestoga Traction Company.
Judges: Before Fell, Brown, Mestrbzat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
Kannenberg, Appellant, v. Conestoga Traction Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Crossing—“Stop, look and listen” — Car and wagon — Nonsuit.
In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries it appeared that the plaintiff was riding in a closed laundry wagon going in the direction in which the cars ran, and the only precaution he took before crossing the tracks was to stop and look back when twenty-five or thirty feet from the crossing. He then drove on slowly and without looking again turned across the tracks, and was struck by a car which he could have seen if he had looked again before turning or when at the edge of the tracks. Held, that a nonsuit was properly entered.
Argued May 14, 1906.
Appeal, No. 304, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., April T., 1902, No. 2, refusing to take off nonsuit in ease of Charles A. Kannenberg v. The Conestoga Traction Company.
May 24, 1906:
Before Fell, Brown, Mestrbzat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass, to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Landis, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
B. F. Davis, for appellant.
W. U. Sensei, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The plaintiff was riding in a closed laundry wagon going in the direction in which the cars ran, and the only precaution he took before crossing the tracks was to stop and look back when twenty-five or thirty feet from the crossing. He then drove on slowly and without looking again turned across the tracks, and was struck by a car which he could have seen if he had looked again before turning or when at the edge of the tracks. He disregarded a duty established by an unbroken line of decisions on the subject extending from Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Railway Co., 150 Pa. 180, to Moser v. Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 481.
The judgment is affirmed.