Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Groh v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 9, 1970No. Appeal, No. 402Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pomeroy :

Since my agreement and disagreement with the majority does not completely coincide with either of the other separate opinions, I must briefly state my own views.(1) As to negligence, while the evidence was thin indeed, resting as it did on somewhat wobbly expert testimony of one witness, I agree with the opinion of the Court that there was enough to take the case to the juzy. If this be true, there is no basis for a new trial on the ground the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; the defendant put in no evidence, and did not…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schwab v. P. J. Oesterling & Son, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
  2. Rank v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  3. Derbyshire's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  4. Eberlin v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API