Welke v. Bergdoll
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1912, No. 3,896, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Gustave Welke v. Emma C. Bergdoll. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Brégy, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $300. Defendant appealed. Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Trexler, J.,
Briefly stated the testimony of the plaintiff was to the effect that after he had worked about nine months on defendant’s farm, she told him to come to town and act as her coachman. He replied that he could not do it, that he had never driven a horse in his life. The defendant said she would teach him. He came to town, and on the day of the accident he was ordered to drive the team, and although he protested as before, he nevertheless undertook to act as coachman. He testified that he started to drive and the horses ran fast and fought. He tried to stop them, but the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pittsburgh Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Erickson v. SutherlandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918