153 Pa. 29 | Pa. | 1893
The little boy, whose untimely death resulted from the alleged negligence of the defendant company, was less than six years old. Hence, contributory negligence cannot be imputed to him. Nor can it be imputed to his father under the evidence. The sole question then for determination is, whether the defendant company was guilty of negligence in the manner of running its car at the time the accident occurred. This is the only question in the case, and the only one raised by the specifications of error. The learned judge below was asked to direct a verdict for the defendant. We think this request was properly refused, as there was evidence which could not be withdrawn from the jury. It may be, as contended by the defendant, that the child ran suddenly under the car, and was not seen by the gripman, but there was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that other persons saw the child when the car was two lengths and a half away. There was also evidence that the gripman, at the time, was not attending to his business ; that he was standing on the side of the cab with one hand out of the window, and looking towards the houses he was passing, and that he did not have hold of his grip or brake; that when hallooed to by persons who saw the child, he paid no attention to the warning. This testimony, if true, and it has been so found by the jury, is of a very damaging character. The running of this class of cars through the crowded streets
Judgment affirmed.
See, also the preceding and following cases and Chilton v. Central Traction Co., 152 Pa. 425.