Weekly notes of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the county courts of Philadelphia, and the United States district ... eastern district of Pennsylvania Volume 44 - Tapa blanda
Sinopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 Excerpt: ...a non-suit would not have been error. James Boyd, (E. F. Kane with him), for appellee. If a person, having a choice of two ways, one of which is perfectly safe, and the other of which is subject to risks or dangers, voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, he is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover. Haven v. Bridge Co., 151 Pa. 627. Lynch v. Erie City, 151 Pa. 381. Brendlinger v. Township, 148 Id. 95. In an accident case, where the evidence is uncontradicted that the cause is remote and not proximate, it is the duty of the Court to determine that point as a matter of law and instruct the jury accordingly. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Trich, 10 Cent. 367. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 316. May 23, 1899. Sterrett, C. J. This appeal is from the refusal of the learned Court below to take off the non-suit which was ordered at the trial on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The only question presented here is. whether the evidence was such as required submission to the jury of the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. As to the former, there is no room for any doubt. If the testimony on that subject is true no jury could hesitate to find that the defendant borough was guilty of negligence in leaving the steep embankment down to the railroad tracks unguarded, etc. As to the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff, while there is perhaps sufficient testimony to justify submission of the question to a jury, there are no fact or facts either admitted or established by undisputed evidence, that would justify a trial Judge in declaring, as matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore could not recover. Without unnecessarily consuming time, by reviewing or summarizing the evi...
"Sinopsis" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Reseña del editor
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 Excerpt: ...a non-suit would not have been error. James Boyd, (E. F. Kane with him), for appellee. If a person, having a choice of two ways, one of which is perfectly safe, and the other of which is subject to risks or dangers, voluntarily chooses the latter and is injured, he is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover. Haven v. Bridge Co., 151 Pa. 627. Lynch v. Erie City, 151 Pa. 381. Brendlinger v. Township, 148 Id. 95. In an accident case, where the evidence is uncontradicted that the cause is remote and not proximate, it is the duty of the Court to determine that point as a matter of law and instruct the jury accordingly. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Trich, 10 Cent. 367. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 316. May 23, 1899. Sterrett, C. J. This appeal is from the refusal of the learned Court below to take off the non-suit which was ordered at the trial on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The only question presented here is. whether the evidence was such as required submission to the jury of the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. As to the former, there is no room for any doubt. If the testimony on that subject is true no jury could hesitate to find that the defendant borough was guilty of negligence in leaving the steep embankment down to the railroad tracks unguarded, etc. As to the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff, while there is perhaps sufficient testimony to justify submission of the question to a jury, there are no fact or facts either admitted or established by undisputed evidence, that would justify a trial Judge in declaring, as matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore could not recover. Without unnecessarily consuming time, by reviewing or summarizing the evi...
"Sobre este título" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
