Bernstein ex rel. Bernstein v. Ernst

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Bernstein ex rel. Bernstein v. Ernst

45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 432, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 410

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 29, 1900

DocketAppeal, No. 258

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A. 312 (Bernstein ex rel. Bernstein v. Ernst) 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

Bernstein ex rel. Bernstein v. Ernst, 45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 432, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 410 (Pa. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action was brought to recover damages occasioned by the negligence of the defendants. The question of the defend[435]*435ants’ alleged negligence was carefully and correctly submitted to the jury with instructions that the boy could not be held responsible for contributory negligence, and that if they found the defendants guilty of negligence which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury the verdict should be for the plaintiff. There certainly was very contradictory evidence as to the facts and circumstances of the accident, and it was the duty of the jury to decide between the conflicting statements of the witnesses. On this subject also the jury was correctly instructed. They found a verdict for the defendants and thereby necessarily found that the defendants were not guilty of negligence, and by this verdict, the court below and this Court are bound. In this view of the case the rejected questions submitted to the expert witness become entirely immaterial. If there was no negligence of the defendants it does not matter what the condition of the plaintiff ■was. The assignments of error to portions of the charge and to the answers to points are not sustained. The court was not in error in wliat was said in this connection. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This action was brought to recover damages occasioned by the negligence of the defendants. The question of the defend[435]*435ants’ alleged negligence was carefully and correctly submitted to the jury with instructions that the boy could not be held responsible for contributory negligence, and that if they found the defendants guilty of negligence which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury the verdict should be for the plaintiff. There certainly was very contradictory evidence as to the facts and circumstances of the accident, and it was the duty of the jury to decide between the conflicting statements of the witnesses. On this subject also the jury was correctly instructed. They found a verdict for the defendants and thereby necessarily found that the defendants were not guilty of negligence, and by this verdict, the court below and this Court are bound. In this view of the case the rejected questions submitted to the expert witness become entirely immaterial. If there was no negligence of the defendants it does not matter what the condition of the plaintiff ■was. The assignments of error to portions of the charge and to the answers to points are not sustained. The court was not in error in wliat was said in this connection. The assignments of error are all dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A. 312, 194 Pa. 432, 1900 Pa. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernstein-ex-rel-bernstein-v-ernst-pa-1900.