Hodder v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 210, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 190J, No. 2,Y12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Augusta C. Plodder v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 210, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 190J, No. 2,Y12, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Augusta C. Plodder v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before MoMiohael, J. The material portion of the charge of the court was as follows: Now then, gentlemen, you are to decide from the evidence, applying to it the rules which govern you in the ordinary affairs of life, whether or not this lady stepped from a moving car, or, as one of the witnesses said, jumped from a moving car ; or…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion bt
Mr. Justice Stewart,
It is complained in the assignment of error that the charge of the court was not a fair and adequate presentation of the case upon tlje facts. That it was a very full and entirely correct exposition of the law applicable to the case itself ‘is conceded. It does not concern us to inquire whether the verdict was in accordance with the facts or otherwise, but the assignment of error puts upon us the duty of inquiring whether the jury, in reaching its conclusion, was properly and sufficiently aided by the court in the presentation and discussion of the evidence. The…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Patterson v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Davies v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Chitwood v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Weiss v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Berry v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.