D'Amato v. Segal
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 200, Oct. T., 1920, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1918, No. 2375, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Antonio D’Amato v. Harry Segal. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s wife. Before Rogers, J. From the record it appeared that the wife of the plaintiff, while crossing a street in the City of Philadelphia, was struck by an ice wagon belonging to the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 200, Oct. T., 1920, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1918, No. 2375, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Antonio D’Amato v. Harry Segal. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s wife. Before Rogers, J. From the record it appeared that the wife of the plaintiff, while crossing a street in the City of Philadelphia, was struck by an ice wagon belonging to the defendant. No direct evidence as to the ownership of the wagon was submitted, but the question was determined on the pleadings as set forth in the opinion of the Superior Court.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
A verdict was recovered in the court below in plaintiff’s favor, and on this appeal it is urged that the court erred in holding that the affidavit of defense filed in the case admitted the ownership of a certain wagon or vehicle drawn by a horse or horses, as the property of the defendant. The allegation in the statement of claim was as follows: (2) The defendants, on or about June 27, 1918, owned, operated and controlled a certain wagon or vehicle drawn by a horse or horses in the pursuit of his *105business: (3) That it was his duty to operate the said wagon or vehicle…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McGlinchey v. SteigerwaldSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Eberbach v. Clyde Steamship Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
3Cited by1 opinion
- Schmidt v. MartzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947