Williams v. Ludwig Floral Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 131, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., July Term, 1913, No. 1318, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Dixie Williams v. Ludwig Floral Company. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Davis, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict for plaintiff for |2,250.00 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed. Error assigned, among others, was in refusing defendant’s motion for judgment n. o. v.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The main contention of the appellant is that the appellee failed to prove as part of her case that appellant’s employee, at the time of the accident, was operating its automobile delivery wagon in connection with its business, and therefore the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto should have been allowed. The name of the defendant company was on the wagon; at the time of the accident the secretary of the company was operating it; though the accident occurred on Sunday, the evidence showed the defendant’s store was open for business during that day and that the wagon was…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Hartig v. American Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- MacDonald v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Holzheimer v. Lit Bros.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Maloy v. Rosenbaum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
- Readshaw Et Ux. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.