Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hitz v. Stouffer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 16, 1965No. Appeals, Nos. 276 and 277Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Watkins, J.:

I respectfully dissent. The appellants contend that they are entitled to judgment n.o.v. or failing in that, a new trial, because Jean M. Stouffer was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and because of an error in the charge of the court below.

It appears that Mrs. Stouffer entered the intersection after seeing Pearson approaching over 250 feet away and did not look again until just before the collision. Regarding this the court charged as follows: “Bear in mind what I said to you, members of the jury, about the duty to observe. Normally, when…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Enfield v. StoutSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. Pro v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Davis v. Industrial Health, Accident & Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Primio v. HaertterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Brodsky v. BockmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

1 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