Legal Opinion

Sipko v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 1938No. Appeal, 154PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Maxey,

Defendant has appealed from the refusal of its motion for judgment n. o. v., its contention being that the court below should have denied recovery because the facts admitted by plaintiff convicted him of contributory negligence as a matter of law. One of the three judges who heard the motion dissented from the order of the court below overruling it. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, which was subsequently reduced to $3,000. Plaintiff’s injuries, aside from some superficial bruises and lacerations, consisted of a slight concussion of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bardis v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  2. Warner v. Peoples' St.-Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  3. Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  4. Kilgallen v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  5. Gilmartin v. Lackawanna Valley Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  2. Berenato v. Seneca Speciality Insurance Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Slater v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947

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