Murray v. Scranton Railway Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 37, March T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1904, No. 178, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Michael Murray and Mary Ann Murray v. The Scranton Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of child. Before Edwards, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.. Verdict for plaintiff for $480. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 37, March T., 1908, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1904, No. 178, for defendant non obstante veredicto in case of Michael Murray and Mary Ann Murray v. The Scranton Railway Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of child. Before Edwards, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.. Verdict for plaintiff for $480. The court subsequently entered judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Error assigned was in entering judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Orlad y, J.,
The plaintiffs below recovered a verdict of $480, which was subsequently set aside by the court-and a judgment was entered for the defendant, non obstante veredicto. In disposing of the rule for a new trial and directing a judgment for the defendant, the court below concluded that there were but two questions that required consideration. First, was there.any evidence of defendant’s negligence to be submitted to the jury? Second, were the plaintiffs guilty of contributory negligence? The trial judge resolved the first question in. favor of the plaintiffs, but concluded,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kay v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
- Woeckner v. Erie Electric Motor Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. LongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1874
- Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Dunseath v. Pittsburg, Allegheny & Manchester Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Parrotta v. Pennsylvania & Mahoning Valley Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Safranski v. SemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Stodd v. City of PhiladelphiaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1910