Vervaeke v. Adams Express Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Nov. Term, 1907, No. 34, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Hector Vervaeke v. Adams Express Company. Trespass against a common carrier to recover damages for injuries to nine horses. From the record it appeared that on December 4, 1908, a verdict was rendered for the defendant under the instructions of the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Venango Co., Nov. Term, 1907, No. 34, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Hector Vervaeke v. Adams Express Company. Trespass against a common carrier to recover damages for injuries to nine horses. From the record it appeared that on December 4, 1908, a verdict was rendered for the defendant under the instructions of the court. Subsequently, while a rule for a new trial was pending, the plaintiff moved to amend his statement of claim. In allowing this motion and in granting a new trial, Cbiswell, P. J., filed the following…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Leave to amend the statement of claim was properly *651allowed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the common pleas, making absolute the plaintiff’s rule for that purpose. The question whether the rule of law in this state, which prohibits a common carrier from limiting its liability for negligence, is abrogated by the Interstate Commerce Act, was decided at the trial in accordance with Wright v. Adams Express Co., 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 40, the judgment in which case we have affirmed in an opinion handed down with this, ante, p. 635.
The judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wright v. Adams Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
3Cited by3 opinions
- Joynes v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
- Severance v. Heyl & PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Lehigh National Bank v. SeyfriedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925