Court Opinion

ID: 9747776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:33:56.837415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:27.028530
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
Defendant’s train, made up of a locomotive, tender and seven coal cars, was approaching a grade crossing with lights on and signaling its approach and presence by ringing bells. It was stopped at the road crossing for several seconds for the purpose of shifting its cars.
Pletcher’s automobile, in which plaintiffs were passengers, while being driven fast and admittedly negligently, crashed into defendant’s locomotive. The majority opinion suggests that the locomotive could have stopped on the upgrade just before the highway crossing. The majority admit that a moving locomotive or train of cars has a right to block a crossing while in the course of its passage over it. See Venchik v. P. R. R. Co., 143 Pa. Superior Ct. 438, 440, 18 A. 2d 118.
*646If the locomotive had continued to move slowly instead of stopping momentarily, the accident would have happened just exactly as it did happen. The Statute of 1845 (Act of March 20, 1845, P. L. 191, §1, 67 PS §452) which makes it illegal for a railroad to “block up” a street crossing, must receive a reasonable construction. Even the majority admit that it is not negligence to stop a train at a grade crossing for a reasonable length of time. Under the facts in this case, no jury should be permitted to say that “several seconds” was an unreasonable time. I believe it was not negligence to stop momentarily after an upgrade on a highway crossing, with lights lighted and bells ringing; but in any event defendant’s negligence, if any existed, was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Under all these facts I would hold that judgment n.o.v. for the Railroad Company was properly entered and should be affirmed. Cf. Cella v. P. R. R. Co., 364 Pa. 82, 85-86, 70 A. 2d 638; Yolton v. P. R. R. Co., 368 Pa. 429, 84 A. 2d 501.