Schildnecht v. Follmer Trucking Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Drew,
Defendant frankly admits that its driver was negligent, as well it might since that fact is established by the verdict based on substantial testimony. The sole question for decision is the alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff, which we are asked to declare as a matter of law, the jury having found otherwise. After the entry of judgment, the court en banc having refused defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, this appeal was taken. The facts are brief, and we shall consider them in the light most favorable to plaintiff as we are required to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Simrell Et Ux. v. EschenbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Murphy v. Bernheim & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Gaber Et Ux. v. WeinbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Adams v. FieldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Rowland v. CanusoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- McCormick Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Vunak v. WaltersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Bockstoce Et Ux. v. Pittsbgh. Rwys. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
- Blaskey v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.