Folk v. Schaeffer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 450, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, front judgment of C. P. Berks Co., August T., 1894, No. 76, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 450, Jan. T., 1897, by defendants, front judgment of C. P. Berks Co., August T., 1894, No. 76, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Endlich, J. Tbe facts appear by tbe opinion of the Supreme Court, and by tbe previous report of the case in 180 Pa. 613. Defendants’ points and tbe answers thereto among others were as follows: 11. There is no testimony in tbe case from which the jury could find that the defendants were guilty of negligence. Answer: Declined. [1] 12. The plaintiffs own testimony shows that tbe accident occurred through…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Peel,
When the record of a previous trial of this case was before us the judgment was reversed because of the admission of what we considered irrelevant testimony, but we then expressed the opinion that the case could not have been taken from the jury. See 180 Pa. 613. The testimony at the second trial was substantially the same as that at the first, and all of the specifications of error relate to the refusal of the court to give peremptory instructions for the defendants.
*255The plaintiff was on an elevated platform assisting fellow-workmen in raising from the ground, sixty…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Folk v. SchaefferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
3Cited by10 opinions
- Womble v. . Grocery Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Bender v. WelshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Dillon v. William S. Scull Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- Wyldes ex rel. McLaughlin v. PattersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Basham v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.