Tate v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 109, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 2658, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Maud Tate, by her next friend Samuel Brandon, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ormerod, P. J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 109, Jan. T., 1913, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 2658, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Maud Tate, by her next friend Samuel Brandon, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ormerod, P. J., specially presiding. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. The court in part charged as follows: “The first question which you will have to determine is whether this accident did occur by reason of the negligence of the motorman of the car. There is no proof as to just…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff, Maud Tate, a colored child seven years of age, who was struck by defendant’s car at the intersection of Fifteenth and Tioga streets in the City of Philadelphia. The case was submitted to the jury and a verdict having been returned for the pláintiff and judgment entered thereon, the defendant company has taken this appeal.
The statement avers that the car “knocked down and ran over plaintiff, through the negligence of defendant’s employee in charge of said car, who so carelessly and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hagos v. Reading Transit & Light Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917