242 Pa. 502 | Pa. | 1914
Opinion by
It is contended for appellant that the learned trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant, or that having failed to do so judgment non obstante
On the other hand, appellees contend that there was negligence not only in the failure to give proper signals as the car approached John street, an intersecting thoroughfare, but that the motorman, if looking ahead as it was his duty to do, could have seen the boy in time to stop the car and thus avoid the accident. The following and other cases of like import are relied on to sustain this position: Harkins v. Traction Co., 173 Pa. 146; Jones v. Traction Co., 201 Pa. 344; Conner v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 216 Pa. 609; Tatarewicz v. Traction Co., 220 Pa. 560; Reichle v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 241 Pa. 1. The rule of each line of cases is established by numerous precedents, but whether one rule or the other shall be applied to a particular case must necessarily depend upon the facts, as must also the question whether the case is for the jury or for the court. In the opinion refusing the motion for judgment non obstante the learned court below made the following summary of the testimony produced at the trial: “The story of plaintiffs, as told by their witnesses, was: That the boy, after sledding down John street a number of times, got off
Judgments affirmed.