Foard v. Rath
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 127, Oct. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1905, No. 2,469, on verdict of plaintiff in case of Andrew J. Foard v. Charles Rath. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ralston, J. ' The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $750. Defendant appealed. Urror assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Morrison, J.,
This is an action of trespass based on the alleged negligence of -the defendant. At the close of the evidence counsel for defendant asked the court to charge that, “ Under all the evidence in the case, your verdict should be for the defendant.” This point was refused and an exception granted for defendant and a bill sealed. The single assignment of error is in substance that the court erred in refusing said point.
*184The two controlling questions thus raised are, (a) the negligence of the defendant, and (b) the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
To present this case…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Robb v. Connellsville Bor.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
- Stevens v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Hart v. . GrennellNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Steck v. City of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Bedell v. BerkeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Silver v. HauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925