Legal Opinion

Hummel v. Quaker City Cabs, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 10, 1935No. Appeals, 191 and 192PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

James, J.,

These two appeals, growing out of the same accident and involving the same question, were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion.

-Joseph Marciano, owner, and Thomas P. Hummel, driver of a taxicab, recovered separate verdicts for damages arising from a collision between Marciano’s and defendant’s taxicabs. Both cases were heard before Glass, J., without a jury, who found for the plaintiffs. Defendant’s motions for judgment non obstante veredicto were refused, judgments entered on the verdicts, and these appeals followed.

The sole question is the contributory…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Guilinger v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Keystone Lead Co. v. FrechieSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. McGuire v. BrambillaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Peters v. Colonial Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  2. Paul W. Thorton v. William AronoffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API