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