Legal Opinion

Swilley v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 7, 1943No. Appeal, 118PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

Defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. was overruled, and from this action of the court below it has appealed; its motion for a new trial was granted.

Defendant maintains that plaintiff is precluded from recovery because he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Plaintiff was driving his automobile east on Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, about 15 miles per hour, on a dry clear morning. His automobile and defendant’s trolley car collided at Fifteenth and Chestnut Streets. Chestnut Street has one-way traffic eastward, and Fifteenth Street has one-way traffic southward.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Byrne v. Schultz (Stone)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Brungo v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Shearer v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Van Note v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  2. Elliot v. P.T.C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Elliott v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  4. McCraley Et Vir v. George, TrusteesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API