Frame v. Electric Traction Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 310, Jan. Term, 1896, by plaintiff,.from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. Term, 1895, No. 162, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 310, Jan. Term, 1896, by plaintiff,.from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Sept. Term, 1895, No. 162, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was injured on May 30, 1895. He described the accident as follows: “ A. I was driving north on 43d street on Decoration Day, the 30th of May, and when I got to Baltimore avenue I made a turn going east, and as I made the turn I looped on the eastbound track, that is looped one rail, turning right off, and as I got off, this car caught the back end of my wagon, and the jar was…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Tbe only assignment of error in this case is tbe refusal of tbe court to instruct the 'jury, as requested by the defendant “ that under the evidence in the case you must find for him,” — evidently meaning the defendant company.
A careful consideration of the testimony clearly shows that it presented controlling questions of fact which the jury alone could legally determine, and which the court was in duty bound to submit to them. In view of this it would have been manifest error for the court to have withdrawn the case from their consideration by affirming any such request for…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Indiana Union Traction Co. v. LoveIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
- Kelly v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1918