Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 42, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co-., Nov. T., 1916, No. 86, for defendant n. o. v., in case of Isabella M. Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 42, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co-., Nov. T., 1916, No. 86, for defendant n. o. v., in case of Isabella M. Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Company. Trespass to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband. The facts appear in the following excerpt from the opinion of Stewart, J., sur defendant’s motion for judgment n, o. v.: This is a motion by defendant for judgment n. o. v. .It appeared from the evidence in this case that the husband of the plaintiff was riding in an automobile with Martin Neeb and his son, Elvin Neeb.- Martin Neeb owned…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto was entered on the ground of the contributory negligence of the deceased. This was inevitable under the testimony, and defendant’s tenth and eleventh points should have been affirmed. The learned trial judge so admits in his opinion granting defendant’s motion for judgment, and, on so much of that opinion as points out that no distinction can be made between Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company..248 Pa. 130, and the present case, the judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kilpatrick v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Minnich v. Easton Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
- Martin v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Riley v. SperawOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Baker v. Director General of Railroads, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.