Legal Opinion

Bartunek v. Koch

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 22, 1961No. Appeal, 246PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Bell,

Plaintiff brought an action in trespass for personal injuries and recovered a verdict of $10,000. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground of gross inadequacy of the verdict and erroneous instructions by the trial Judge. When the new trial was refused he took this appeal.

Plaintiff is 49 years of age. Plaintiff’s doctor could not state definitely the cause or extent of plaintiff’s, injuries. It is unnecessary to detail the injuries, since the only material question on this appeal involves the question of whether a jury may, in determining damages, take into…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Leitzell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  2. Kehoe v. Allentown & Lehigh Valley Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  3. Vanormer v. Osborn Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Yost v. Union RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Couture v. NovotnySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  4. Beazley v. Pierce, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, York County1981
  5. Hunter v. KennedyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2021

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API