Smoker v. Baldwin Locomotive Works
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 350, Jan. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of ,C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 1625, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William Smoker v. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Trespass for personal injuries.' Before Barratt, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $4,000 and judgment thereon.’ Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 350, Jan. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of ,C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 1625, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William Smoker v. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Trespass for personal injuries.' Before Barratt, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict for plaintiff for $4,000 and judgment thereon.’ Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was in refusing defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Moschzisker,
William Smoker sued to recover for personal injuries, alleged to be due to defendant’s negligence; the verdict favored plaintiff; judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant has appealed.
At trial in the court below, defendant presented no evidence, but asked for binding instructions, and, subsequently, for judgment n. o. v.; appellant assigns the refusal of these requests as error.
When the testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it must be on this appeal, there is ample evidence to sustain the following statement of facts…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cupples, Jr. v. YearickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930