Court Opinion

ID: 9713620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:18:53.433549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.615240
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne:
Deceased was guilty of negligence gs matter of law, which justified the entry of judgments for defendant n. o. v.
*422Plaintiff’s witness, Robert R. Martin, was the only-eye witness to this distressing fatal accident. He was employed at a factory nearby; had formerly lived in the neighborhood and had also been a watchman at this crossing. The witness testified (p. 34a et seq.) that he saw deceased driving the bread truck at between 5 and 10 miles an hour; that (69a) “Q. . . . the truck continued up on to the crossing and across number 1 track and number 2 track . . . and was finally on number 4 track when it was struck? A. That’s right. Q. And in all the time you saw the truck it never stopped, did it? A. No, sir.” The witness also testified (41a) that when the truck was 5 to 10 feet from the first rail he heard the railroad crossing watchman “holler” and (70a) saw the train coming approximately 100 to 200 feet from the crossing; that he saw the crossing watchman (71a) just north of No. 4 track; that immediately after the accident he observed that the watchman had two lighted lanterns in his hands. Before the accident the witness had not observed the lanterns because (72a) after the watchman called to deceased and the witness saw the train coming he “fastened my eyes on the truck to see if it would stop. ... I kept my eyes on the truck until the accident happened.”
The majority opinion states “Perhaps [deceased] thought that by continuing across, he could clear the oncoming westbound train, which he almost did.” This statement, it is true, was based upon the assumption that deceased was on the first eastbound track before he observed the oncoming westbound train. But the uncontradicted testimony of plaintiff’s witness Martin was that the truck was 5 to 10 feet from the first eastbound rail when the watchman called, and without stopping deceased continued across the tracks.
Failure to stop, look and listen before crossing a railroad track constitutes contributory negligence as *423matter of law: Valera v. Reading Company, 349 Pa. 123, 126, and cases therein cited, 36 A. 2d 644.
If deceased, despite the warning of the watchman, saw and heard, or should have. seen and heard, the rapidly approaching train 100 to 200 feet distant from the crossing, he was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law in risking the obvious danger of a collision in proceeding across the tracks.
For these reasons I dissent and would affirm the judgments of the court below.
Mr. Justice Bell joins in this dissent.