recognizing “a special duty of care” on the part of a railroad toward motorists at a crossing with “a dangerously limited view”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing “a special duty of care” on the part of a railroad toward motorists at a crossing with “a dangerously limited view”
- unobstructed view possible only by placing vehicle into swath of oncoming train and failure of train to sound whistle
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I dissent.
I would enter a judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of Penn Central Transportation Company for each of two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs failed to prove negligence, and (2) the minor plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.