Legal Opinion

Blackman v. Venturi

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 17, 1933No. Appeal 110PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant, Venturi, re-, sponsible for injuries received in a collision between two automobiles, one of which was owned by the defendant. Plaintiff claims that although the owner of the automobile was not present when the accident occurred, the driver of the machine was his agent dr servant.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but the court in banc decided (we think properly) that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict and entered judgment n. o. v. We quote from the opinion of the lower court:

“It appears that Ercolani, Dolcemore,…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. American Automobile Ins. v. Penn Mutual Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API