Camac v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., June T., 1919, No. 456, for defendant n. o. v., in case of John Camac v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Audenried, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for fl0,000. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 144, Jan. T., 1911, by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Pbila. Co., June T., 1919, No. 456, for defendant n. o. v., in case of John Camac v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Audenried, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. At the trial the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for fl0,000. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was entry of judgment for defendant n. o. v., quoting record.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Gray’s Ferry Eoad is of the width of sixty feet and extends westerly in Philadelphia, intersecting Thirty-first Street at right angles. Defendant has a double track electric street railway in the center of Ferry Eoad; that to the south being east bound. On August 29,1919, plaintiff drove a team drawing a heavily laden ice wagon westerly along the north side of this road, and, as he started to turn south on Thirty-first Street, saw an eastbound car coming down from Thirty-second Street, but drove on diagonally over the north track, and did not look west again until his horses were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wolf v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sklaroff v. Phila. R. T. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930