Kennewig v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 195, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1912, No. 714, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Margaret Kennewig and Henry Kennewig, her husband, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 195, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1912, No. 714, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Margaret Kennewig and Henry Kennewig, her husband, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Brown, J. From the record it appeared that in the evening of August 25th, 1908, Margaret Kennewig, plaintiff, who was totally blind, accompanied by her husband, Henry Kennewig, was walking along Woodville avenue in the City of Pittsburgh going toward the city; that the said avenue in the locality in which…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Elkin,
The learned counsel for the appellee begin their argument with a very fair statement of what must be considered in this case. The statement is as follows: “The sole question to be determined in this case is, whether or not the appellants were, under the undisputed facts in the case, guilty of contributory negligence; if they were not, or if there was any doubt, then the case should not have been taken from the jury; if they were, then the judgment of compulsory nonsuit was proper and should be affirmed.” This is the whole case and it is very fairly stated. It is a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Perry v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Skodis Et Ux. v. Phila. R.T. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931