Harris v. Commercial Ice Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 415, Jan. T., 1892, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1890, No. 608, on verdict for plaintiff, Nathaniel Harris. Trespass for personal injuries. The facts, as they appeared before Biddle, J., are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Binding instruction for defendant was refused. [3] Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3,500. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was (3) above instruction, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mitchell,
The evidence leaves no doubt of the negligence of defendant’s driver, and the only question therefore is the contributory negligence of plaintiff. Unfortunately the evidence leaves as little doubt as to this. Birchall says, “ I saw Mr. Harris leaving the curb, and almost instantly he was struck by this ice wagon,” and Albright says, “ I saw this gentleman about putting his foot on the crossing .... and just as he got his foot over, and he ha>d hardly got his other foot over, the wagon struck him with the first wheel.” Both testified that the wagon was coming up…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Robb v. Connellsville Bor.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
3Cited by17 opinions
- Dando v. BrobstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Heath v. KlostermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Weaver v. PickeringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Goff v. College Hill BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Borg v. Spokane Toilet Supply Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.