court, by saying that a doctrine which would impute negligence to a parent in such a case would be repulsive to natural instincts and repugnant to the condition of that class of persons who have to maintain life by daily toil, intimated that had the finding been otherwise it would have been overruled);

-where a boy, five years of age, escaped his mother's attention while she was dressing her baby, and went into the street, where he was killed by a street car less than fifteen minutes after his mother last saw him in the house, Dunseath v. Pittsburgh, A. & M. Traction Co. (1894) 161 Pa. 124, 28 Atl. 1021;

-where a child four years and eight months of age was injured at a railroad crossing, having been permitted by its mother to go to a nearby neighbor's, on the same side of the street, to help his playmate sell "shooting crackers" from a stand erected at his playmate's home, Lederman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (1895) 165 Pa. 118, 44 Am. St. Rep. 644, 30 Atl. 725;

-where a fourteen-year-old uncle, who had charge of a child two years and eleven months of age, left the child on one side of the street, telling it to remain there while he went to the opposite side of the street to get a piece of ice for it, and it attempted to follow, unobserved by the older boy until it was too late to save it from an approaching street car, Harkins v. Pittsburg, A. & M. Traction Co. (1896) 173 Pa. 146, 33 Atl. 1044;

-where a child four and one-half years of age, of a large family, which was in only moderate circumstances, having been permitted to play with an older brother at a near-by coal bin while the mother was busy with the other young children, refused to come home when he and his brother were sent for, and wandered alone to a near-by street, where he was killed by a street car, it appearing that the mother sent an older sister to bring him home, immediately upon being informed of his refusal to come, Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (1896) 176 Pa. 376, 53 Am. St. Rep. 674, 35 51 A.L.R.-15.

Atl. 140. The court said: "Clearly, if the evidence were undisputed that these parents had habitually permitted a child of this age to play on the street, on which ran the trolley car, there could have been no recovery; or, if the evidence had shown they did not on that day, under the circumstances, exercise the care which a child of such tender years demanded, there could have been no recovery;"

-where a child two years and ten months of age, having been out with an elder sister, disobeyed the direction of her sister, upon reaching the front of their home, to follow her into the house, and ran into the street, where she was injured by a street car, it appearing that she was sent for when her absence was detected within a few minutes, Woeckner v. Erie Electric Motor Co. (1897) 182 Pa. 182, 37 Atl. 936, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 601;

-where a child about four years of age left the sidewalk in front of its home where it had been sitting in a chair, and walked to the far side of the street, which was entirely free of vehicles, and was injured by a street car while recrossing the street, it appearing that immediately prior to the accident the child's parents were at an open window about 25 feet away, and that the child's nurse was standing on the pavement near the child, Kroesen v. New Castle Electric Street R. Co. (1901) 198 Pa. 30, 47 Atl. 851;

-where a child not quite two years of age, who was playing in a front room while her fifteen-year-old sister, who was watching her, was scrubbing the front board walk, escaped to the street, where it was injured by a street car, while the sister had gone to the rear of the house for a bucket of water, Jones v. United Traction Co. (1902) 201 Pa. 346, 50 Atl. 827. The court here explained that "the case is not that of a parent permitting his child to run at large, without any protector, on a public street traversed constantly by street cars, . . . but it is that of a child in charge of an elder sister, who, almost in the twinkling of an eye, when the latter's back was turned, escaped from the home and ran into danger;"

-where a child four years of age was killed by a team while it was alone upon a street, and, due to the fact that the mother was dead at the time of the trial, there was no evidence showing the circumstances of its departure from home, but it appeared that the father, living in a very crowded district, had, before the accident, fenced his small front yard to keep his children off the street, and had instructed them not to go upon the street, Del Rossi v. Cooney (1904) 208 Pa. 233, 57 Atl. 514;

-where a child two years of age was injured by a street car while its father was away at work, and its mother was out on an errand, having left the child with its ten-year-old sister, Davis v. Westmoreland County R. Co. (1908) 222 Pa. 356, 71 Atl. 538; -where a boy, six and one-half years of age, whose parents were poor working people, was killed at a railroad crossing near his home, and his father knew that he was playing in the street with older children, McKinney v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. (1915) 247 Pa. 217, 93 Atl. 287;

-where a six-year-old boy, who lived in a residential section, was sent by his mother on an errand a block and a half away, and, contrary to his mother's instructions, took his sled with him, and while coasting was run over by a truck, Yeager v. Gately (1919) 262 Pa. 466, 106 Atl. 76;

-where parents permitted a sixyear-old boy to go unaccompanied two squares from his home to attend school, Osterling v. Frick (1925) 284 Pa. 397, 131 Atl. 250;

-where a boy four or five years old was killed by a truck when he was alone on a city street, and there was no evidence tending to explain his presence there, other than the testimony of the father, who lived near by, that he thought the boy was playing upstairs, DATTOLA V. BURT BROS. (reported herewith) ante, 205;

-where a child, two years and three months of age, passed out of the house through the kitchen, where a servant was at work, while its mother had gone upstairs for a few minutes, and went through the back gate, which

its father had fastened a short while before on his way out to work, and into the street, where it was injured by a street car just as its mother, who had missed it, appeared on the scene, Henne v. People's Street R. Co. (1896) 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 311;

-where a child three years and eight months of age escaped from her home (the circumstances not appearing), and was injured by a street car, Buente v. Pittsburg, A. & M. Traction Co. (1896) 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 186;

-where a boy, who had been given permission to play on the street by his grandmother, who had charge of him, was injured by a street car while riding a bicycle, Phillips v. Duquesne Traction Co. (1898) 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 210;

-where the mother of a young child left it playing in the dining room while she was busy with her household duties, and the child succeeded in getting the front door, which was latched, open, and went into the street, where it was killed, due to a dangerous place existing in the street, Weida v. Hanover Twp. (1906) 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 424;

-where a mother having no serv ants left her young child in the house playing while she was out for a "very short" time, and the child escaped into the street, where it was almost immediately injured by a wagon, Corpies v. Sand Co. (1906) 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 107;

-where a child four years of age was permitted by its parents, who were poor people, to play on the sidewalk in the charge of an eleven-yearold brother, and in attempting to cross the street alone it was kiled by a street car, Distasio v. United Traction Co. (1908) 35 Pa. Super. Ct. 406;

-where a mother, living in a block where there were no yards to the houses, and sitting on a neighbor's front steps holding her child, twentytwo months old, allowed the child to go into the street where other small children were playing, and it was there run over by a wagon, which she saw coming, but was unable to get to her child in time to save it, Safranski v. Seman (1909) 40 Pa. Super. Ct. 219; -where a child between three and

four years of age of age escaped from the back yard, where it was playing with other children, through the house into the front street, where it was injured by a street car, while the mother was engaged in preparing supper, and it appeared that the mother always kept the front door closed, and never let the child play in the street, and that she had missed the child and started to look for it when she learned of the accident, Parrotta v. Pennsylvania & M. Valley R. Co. (1909) 40 Pa. Super. Ct. 138;

-where a child between four and five years of age, whose father was busy with his work as a tailor in a back room, and whose mother was busy with a baby and had seen the child about five minutes before, escaped from the housemaid, who was busy, and went into the street, where it was injured by a street car, Fineman v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. (1910) 42 Pa. Super. Ct. 379 (the court pointed out that negligence in such cases involves permission or inattention on the part of the parents or custodians of the child, and that what constitutes permission or inattention, except in very clear cases, is for the jury to say);

-where the mother of a child two years and four months of age sent the child, along with its older sister, six years of age, to a near-by store, and it was injured in the street, Loughran v. Thomas Bros. Co. (1916) 65 Pa. Super. Ct. 302;

-where a three-year-old child was killed by a street car, after having been away from its mother, who was ironing in the kitchen, only about ten minutes, the parents being in humble circumstances and the mother having six children, the oldest aged nine, to look after, Kurtz v. Buffalo & L. E. Traction Co. (1925) 86 Pa. Super. Ct. 234;

-where a child nineteen months of age, whose mother was watching it as it played about the front of her store, as best she could while waiting on customers, escaped into the street, where it was injured by a street car, Reinike v. Philadelphia Traction Co.

(1893) 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 229, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 319, 31 W. N. C. 471; Washington.

-where a child six years and seven months of age, having been sent by its mother along with its ten-year-old sister to the post office two blocks away, was killed by a street car while its sister was in the postoffice some five minutes, Tecker v. Seattle, R. & S. R. Co. (1910) 60 Wash. 570, 111 Pac. 791, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 842;

-where a child three years and nine months of age, who had been sent on an errand in a residential section along with its seven-year-old sister, was killed by a street car, Sundstrom v. Puget Sound Traction Light & P. Co. (1916) 90 Wash. 640, 156 Pac. 828;

-where parents permitted their child, eight and one-half years old, to cross a street, unattended, in a residential section, on which a doubletrack street railway was operated, and on which the traffic was heavy, Bruner v. Little (1917) 97 Wash. 319, 166 Pac. 1166;

-where a deaf and dumb child, four years of age, having been allowed by its mother to go downstairs to visit the landlady of the apartment house where it lived, while its mother prepared the evening meal, escaped into the street, where it was killed by a street car about twenty minutes after it left its mother, Norton v. Seattle (1920) 113 Wash. 408, 194 Pac. 373; Wisconsin.

-where a mother allowed her son, about nine years of age, to go on an errand for another party, as he was in the habit of doing, necessitating his passing a short distance beyond a railroad crossing, where there were several tracks, and he was killed in crossing the tracks, Ewen v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1875) 38 Wis. 614;

-where a six-year-old boy was killed by a train at a public street crossing, where many school children were in the habit of crossing, Johnson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1880) 49 Wis. 529, 5 N. W. 886;

-where a mother, desiring to go to a near-by store, left her child, between four and five years of age, in charge

of her thirteen-year-old son, who was sitting on the front steps of their home, contiguous to the sidewalk, and the child escaped, unobserved, into the street, where it was injured by a street car before the son, who, having missed the child, was making a search for it, found it, Dahl v. Milwaukee City R. Co. (1885) 62 Wis. 652, 22 N. W. 755;

-where a boy, not quite seven years of age, was injured by a street car while he was upon the principal business street of the town, Holdridge v. Mendenhall (1900) 108 Wis. 1, 81 Am. St. Rep. 871, 83 N. W. 1109;

-where a mother, soon after dark, left her seventeen-months-old child in the kitchen of her home in a high chair, eating, and in company with some adult relatives, while she went across the street to a grocery store, and in a few minutes thereafter the child had gotten out of the chair, a thing which it had never done alone to the knowledge of the mother, and which was unexplained in this instance, and gone into the busy street in front of the house, where it was run over by a street car, Monrean v. Eastern Wisconsin R. & Light Co. (1913) 152 Wis. 618, 140 N. W. 309;

-where a boy seven years and ten months of age, having been left by his parents, both of whom worked, with an older sister, went into the street and was injured by playing around a horse and wagon, which he had been cautioned about, and scolded for playing around, by his parents on several occasions, Kashuda v. Adams Exp. Co. (1920) 171 Wis. 25, 176 N. W. 222;

-where a six-year-old child, having been kept off the street in front of its home while plumbing work had been going on there, for three days, escaped the vigilance of his parents and went into the street, where it was killed by a ditch caving in, Ptak v. Kuetemeyer (1924) 182 Wis. 357, 196 N. W. 855, 197 N. W. 363; Miscellaneous.

-where a boy between eleven and twelve years of age, being large for his age and accustomed to driving and tending to the family horse, was sent by his mother on a trip which would necessitate crossing a stream which

was very much subject to freshets, and, due to the condition of the bridge at the stream, and a freshet which he encountered upon arriving there, he was drowned, Bronson v. Southbury (1870) 37 Conn. 189;

--where a sick mother sent her five

year-old son on a necessary errand across a street in which street cars were operated, Citizens' Street R. Co. v. Stoddard (1894) 10 Ind. App. 278, 37 N. E. 723;

-where a mother, having no knowledge of the presence of an excavation in the street in front of her home, permitted her five-year-old child to go into the street, unattended, where it was drowned by falling into the excavation, Indianapolis v. Emmelman (1886) 108 Ind. 530, 58 Am. Rep. 65, 9 N. E. 155;

-where a three-year-old child was drowned in an excavation in the street in front of its home, and its mother knew of the excavation, and had been trying to keep her children off of the street, Schaubel v. Manhattan (1918) 102 Kan. 430, 170 Pac. 984;

-where parents had allowed their three-year-old child, on the day that it was injured, and probably on prior occasions, to go or escape into the street in front of their house, wherein there were street car lines, Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Wilburn (1925) 206 Ky. 510, 267 S. W. 1090;

-where a boy, between five and six years of age, was sent by his mother on an errand several blocks away, after being cautioned to keep away from certain railway cars that were then standing on the street, and not to go under them, and he was injured when the defendant railroad moved some of the cars, McMahon v. Northern C. R. Co. (1874) 39 Md. 438;

-where a boy four and one-half years old, who lived with his parents in a thickly populated section of a city where the blocks were built up solidly with adjoining houses, was killed by a street car within five minutes after he was left on the front steps of his home by his mother, who was called into the house by the cry of her baby, Washington, B. & A. Electric R. Co. v. State (1927) Md. 137 Atl. 484. It was

said that courts are cautious not to invade the province of the jury, and that, although the question of negligence might become a matter of law, the circumstances of the case must be clear and decisive to justify a withdrawal of the case from the consideration of the jury;

-where the parents of a child four years of age, while “enjoying a Sunday afternoon rest," saw the child go out of the house with its seven-yearold sister, and it was killed a short time thereafter by a street car a few blocks away from home, Feldman v. Detroit United R. Co. (1910) 162 Mich. 486, 127 N. W. 687;

- where a child four and a half years of age had been allowed to go across the street to a playground with his seven-year-old brother, and he was injured while crossing the street returning home, Converse v. Adleman (1922) 153 Minn. 306, 190 N. W. 340; -where the parents allowed their two small children to walk in advance of them upon a sidewalk, and, by turning, get out of their sight for a moment and start across a street, where one of the children was injured by a team, the parents being familiar with the amount of traffic, etc., Trow v. Thomas (1898) 70 Vt. 580, 41 Atl. 652;

-where a widow's child, four and one-half years old, was drowned in a hole in the street in front of its home within fifteen minutes after the mother, who was preparing the evening meal for her boarders, had seen it in the house, Newport News v. Scott (1905) 103 Va. 794, 50 S. E. 266.

In the following cases, where the circumstances of the presence of the child upon the street did not appear, it was held that the question of the parent's negligence was one for the jury to determine: Schierhold v. North Beach & M. R. Co. (1871) 40 Cal. 447; Garris v. Bell (1916) 253 Pa. 33, 97 Atl. 1034; Thompson v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (1910) 41 Pa. Super. Ct. 617; Huerzeler v. Central Cross Town R. Co. (1893) 139 N. Y. 490, 34 N. E. 1101 (five-year-old child); Thies v. Thomas (1902) 77 N. Y. Supp. 276 (child between six and seven years of age); Dudley v. Westcott (1892) 44 N. Y. S. R. 882, 18 N. Y. Supp. 130, reversing (1891) 40 N. Y. S. R. 506, 15 N. Y. Supp. 952 (child three years and four months of age); Muller v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (1897) 18 App. Div. 177, 45 N. Y. Supp. 954 (child about six years of age). J. N. G.

V.

War, § 10

todian.