Snyder v. Hbg. Rwy. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.

    38 F. Supp. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1941)   Cited 1 times

            To the same effect was Struse v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 87 Pa.Super. 46.         A close analogy exists between the instant case and Snyder v. Harrisburg Railways Co., 88 Pa.Super. 20,         'Plaintiff occupied a space in the highway reasonably necessary in view of the condition of the street and the purpose of his errand; his lights were lit; the night was clear; the motorman had to approach for three squares with plaintiff's car in view; why didn't he see it? if he saw it, why didn't he sound a warning or stop his car or both?

  2. Weiner v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co.

    165 A. 252 (Pa. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    Layton M. Schoch, with him Bernard J. O'Connell, for appellant. — The accident resulted solely from the fact that the plaintiff, for his mere convenience, assumed a position which became dangerous because of his heedless backward movement: Corbitt v. Transit Co., 227 Pa. 297; Amoroso v. R. R., 305 Pa. 195; Haven v. Bridge Co., 151 Pa. 620; Tomey v. Rys., 300 Pa. 189; Kilgallen v. Transit Co., 300 Pa. 451. Michael A. Foley, with him Henry I. Koplin, for appellee, cited: Fenner v. Traction Co., 202 Pa. 365; McFarland v. Traction Co., 204 Pa. 423; Hastings v. R. R., 272 Pa. 212; Wagner v. Transit Co., 252 Pa. 354; Snyder v. Rys., 88 Pa. Super. 20; Bardis v. Ry., 267 Pa. 352; Chew v. Transit Co., 90 Pa. Super. 155. Argued January 5, 1933.

  3. Pringle et al. v. Smith

    137 A. 603 (Pa. 1927)   Cited 6 times

    The fifth and sixth assignments complain of the trial court's failure to affirm requests asking the jury to find for the defendant if they believed certain things, without saying such belief must be based on the evidence. For which reason, if for no other, the requests, while reserved, should have been refused: Com. v. Nazarko, 224 Pa. 204; Snyder v. Hbg. Ry. Co., 88 Pa. Super. 20; Dinch v. Workman, 75 Pa. Super. 101. The seventh assignment is to the failure to affirm a request that if the jury found for the defendant he should recover the $500 hand money. As the judge had so instructed the jury in the general charge such failure was not error: Warruna v. Dick, 261 Pa. 602; Miller v. Smith Woolen Mach. Co., 220 Pa. 181; Davis v. Continental Ins. Co., 60 Pa. Super. 341. Moreover, as the jury found for the plaintiffs for the unpaid purchase-money, the defendant's counterclaim, based on his right to rescind the contract, dropped out of the case.

  4. Glassman et al. v. P.R.T. Co.

    169 A. 241 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    As we said in the case of Rothberg v. P.R.T. Co., 97 Pa. Super. 447, 450: "One who, knowing that a street car is approaching, voluntarily leaves his vehicle on the track when there is no reason, mechanical or otherwise, requiring him to do so, is guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law." Also, see Brown v. Beaver Valley Trac. Co., 94 Pa. Super. 7. The case is clearly distinguishable from that of an automobile which has been stalled on a street car track (Mead v. Central Penna. Trac. Co., 63 Pa. Super. 76); and from that of a team or truck which is obliged to occupy the street car track for the purpose of unloading (Struse v. Phila. R.T. Co., 87 Pa. Super. 46; McFarland v. Cons. Trac. Co., 204 Pa. 423, 54 A. 308); and from a case where the driver was unable to get his automobile close to the curb because the street paving was then in process of construction (Snyder v. Harrisburg Rwys. Co., 88 Pa. Super. 20); and from other situations in which some emergency or compelling reason for the occupancy of the track existed at the time of the collision. Where there is a real conflict in the testimony produced by a plaintiff, part of which may support a verdict and the other will not, it is for the jury to reconcile the conflicting statements and determine which shall prevail.

  5. Rothweiler v. P.R.T. Co.

    93 Pa. Super. 369 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)   Cited 12 times
    In Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 93 Pa.Super. 369, a sevenfoot truck was parked on the right side of a street containing trolley tracks.

    n the roadway where they were injured were equal to those of the defendants inflicting the injury; while here the defendant had a superior right to the portion of the street occupied by its cars, and the plaintiff was bound, while examining the truck, to put himself in a position which would be safe as respects passing trolley cars: Dix v. Ry. Co., 15 Pa. Super. 350; Gilmartin v. Lackawanna Valley Tran. Co., 186 Pa. 193; Penman v. McKeesport Ry. Co., 201 Pa. 247; Falco v. Allegheny Valley St. Ry. Co., 269 Pa. 51; Warner v. Peoples St. Ry. Co., 141 Pa. 615. The case is not at all similar to cases where a team or truck is obliged to occupy the street car track in order to unload and is there sufficiently long to enable the trolley car to stop in time: Struse v. Phila. R.T. Co., 87 Pa. Super. 46; or where the street along the car track was being repaired and plaintiff was obliged to stop his car close to the rails, but was there long enough for the motorman to have seen him and stopped: Snyder v. Harrisburg Rys. Co., 88 Pa. Super. 20; or where a workman employed by the city to tear up the paving in the cartway was obliged to work close to the car track: Chew v. Phila. R.T. Co., 90 Pa. Super. 155. In Iaquinta v. Traction Co., 166 Pa. 63, the plaintiff was only thirteen years old and his contributory negligence was necessarily for the jury.