Kropko v. Galida

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

In this action in trespass the jury found for plaintiff. The lower court concluding that the verdict was inadequate granted a new trial. Any holding that this plaintiff may recover at all, is the same as saying that a guest passenger in an automobile owes no duty to protect himself against the negligence of the driver. Cf. Wagenbauer v. Schwinn, 285 Pa. 128, 131 A. 699. There is error in the refusal of judgment for defendant n. o. v.

Plaintiff rode in defendant’s automobile, at his in vitation, to see a fire. Defendant drove the ear from the village of Lindora into the City…