Barban v. Maxman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Barban v. Maxman

192 A. 640, 326 Pa. 506, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 512

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 11, 1937

DocketAppeal, 183

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A. 640 (Barban v. Maxman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barban v. Maxman, 192 A. 640, 326 Pa. 506, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 512 (Pa. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an action by the minor plaintiff to recover damages for the death of her mother caused by her being struck near the intersection of 62nd and Chestnut Streets, in the City of Philadelphia, by defendant’s automobile operated by him.

The jury found a verdict in defendant’s favor. The court below granted a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had instructed the jury that there was no evidence from which they might find that the lights on defendant’s car were out before the accident. The court in banc was of the opinion that the question whether the lights were or were not lit should have been submitted to the jury. In this conclusion the trial judge concurred. We are not convinced that the grant of the new trial under the circumstances was an abuse of discretion.

The order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

This is an action by the minor plaintiff to recover damages for the death of her mother caused by her being struck near the intersection of 62nd and Chestnut Streets, in the City of Philadelphia, by defendant’s automobile operated by him.

The jury found a verdict in defendant’s favor. The court below granted a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had instructed the jury that there was no evidence from which they might find that the lights on defendant’s car were out before the accident. The court in banc was of the opinion that the question whether the lights were or were not lit should have been submitted to the jury. In this conclusion the trial judge concurred. We are not convinced that the grant of the new trial under the circumstances was an abuse of discretion.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A. 640, 326 Pa. 506, 1937 Pa. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barban-v-maxman-pa-1937.