Lenkner v. Citizens Traction Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 186, Oct. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1894, No. 782, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Porter, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 186, Oct. T., 1896, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., May T., 1894, No. 782, on verdict for plaintiff. Trespass for personal injuries. Before Porter, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged in part as follows: If at the time they (the plaintiff and her sister) appeared on the track, even although the space between the north curb and the west bound track was full of wagons, and although they had been rung off of that west bound track by the car coming west, and they turned to the left upon the east bound.track, if, when…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,
While this may appear to be a close case, a careful examination of the record clearly shows that the testimony was quite sufficient to require its submission to the jury on the controlling questions of defendant company’s negligence as the proximate cause of the injuries complained of, and the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff. That was accordingly done hi a clear and adequate charge of which the defendant has no just reason to complain. The verdict necessarily implies the finding of both questions of fact in favor of the plaintiff. No…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Holmesburg, Tacony & Frankford Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898