Legal Opinion

Acton v. Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 3, 1939No. Appeals, 196 and 197PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

In this action the plaintiffs recovered for injuries to the wife plaintiff. The refusal of the court to enter judgment for the defendant n. o. v. is the error assigned.

On August 1, 1937 plaintiff, Margaret Acton, then 56 years of age, with her husband and son, boarded a passenger train at Camden and arrived at Atlantic City, their destination, about 11:00 A. M. The train was made up of ten steel passenger coaches of the vestibule type; the plaintiffs were riding in the fourth car from the rear of the train. Mrs. Acton testified that when the train stopped, she went to the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mack v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  2. Meier v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1870
  3. Fern v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Stevenson v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  5. Murray v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Milburn v. Knights of Columbus Home Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  3. Knoud v. GalanteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Ward v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Downs v. CammaranoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API