Legal Opinion

McAvoy v. Kromer

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1923No. Appeals, Nos. 10 and 11PublishedCited by 81 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Plaintiff’s statement charges defendants with operating a car at an “excessive, illegal and improper rate of speed,” and with “negligently and recklessly operating it without due regard for the safety of pedestrians and without being under due control.” The evidence does not sustain these charges, and, to affirm appellee’s case, we must hold that a mere collision between an *198automobile and a pedestrian or vehicle proves negligence; this it does not do: King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 304; Flanigan v. McLean, 267 Pa. 553, 556. Nor does it raise a presumption of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. King Et Al., Appellants, v. BrillhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  2. Virgilio v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  3. Anderson v. Wood, AppellantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  4. Flanigan v. McLeanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Alexander v. Pennsylvania Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902

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

3Cited by81 opinions

  1. Ebersole v. BeistlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  3. Johnson v. HerringMontana Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Sajatovich v. Traction Bus Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Simpson v. HillmanOregon Supreme Court · 1939

76 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