Mechesney v. Unity Township
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, Oct T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Aug. T., 1889, No. 96, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Longenecker, P. J., specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that, on May 30,1882, plaintiff, with a companion, Steele Mechesney, returning from Latrobe borough, drove' over a bridge which was on the boundary line between Latrobe borough and defendant township.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 127, Oct T., 1894, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Westmoreland Co., Aug. T., 1889, No. 96, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Longenecker, P. J., specially presiding. At the trial it appeared that, on May 30,1882, plaintiff, with a companion, Steele Mechesney, returning from Latrobe borough, drove' over a bridge which was on the boundary line between Latrobe borough and defendant township. Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the abutment of the bridge on defendant’s side of the Loyalhanna creek was approached by a curve which descended by a…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
It would have been plain error to have withdrawn the case from the jury as substantially requested in defendant’s eighth point. In view of the testimony tending to prove negligence of defendant, contributory negligence of the plaintiff, eto., the case involved questions of fact which it was the exclusive province of the jury to determine; and it was submitted to them, by the learned president of the 16th judicial district, who specially presided at the trial, in a clear and comprehensive charge in which there appears to be no substantial error. It would subserve no useful purpose…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Duson v. DupréSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880