City of Harrisburg v. Saylor

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

City of Harrisburg v. Saylor

87 Pa. 216, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 146

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 10, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 Pa. 216 (City of Harrisburg v. Saylor) 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

City of Harrisburg v. Saylor, 87 Pa. 216, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 146 (Pa. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Per Curiam.

A careful examination of the record in this case, discloses no sufficient ground for reversal. The question of contributory negligence is a mixed question of law and fact. It is true when the facts are undisputed the court should declare the law thereon. Inasmuch, however, as the measure of duty is generally ordinary and reasonable care, the standard of the degree of care required, shifts w'ith the circumstances: McKee v. Bidwell, 24 P. F. Smith 218; Crissey v. Hestonville Railway Co., 25 Id. 83. When the evidence of concurrent negligence is conflicting, or the facts on which a right to recover are rested are controverted, a jury should pass upon that evidence, and upon those facts. The controlling facts in this case were controverted, the evidence ivas conflicting. It was therefore right to submit them to the jury, as the court did, with a clear and correct statement of the law.

Judgment affirmed.

Immediately after this judgment was entered the counsel for plaintiif in error moved for a re-argument, alleging as a principal reason therefor that only one assignment of error had been considered by the court.

On the 17th of June 1878, Mr. Justice Mercur delivered the following opinion:—

Although our decision mentions and seems to relate to but one assignment of error — that of contributory negligence — yet we considered all the questions raised in the case, so fully and ably argued. both in the paper-book and at the bar.

Motion for re-argument overruled.

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

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered

Per Curiam.

A careful examination of the record in this case, discloses no sufficient ground for reversal. The question of contributory negligence is a mixed question of law and fact. It is true when the facts are undisputed the court should declare the law thereon. Inasmuch, however, as the measure of duty is generally ordinary and reasonable care, the standard of the degree of care required, shifts w'ith the circumstances: McKee v. Bidwell, 24 P. F. Smith 218; Crissey v. Hestonville Railway Co., 25 Id. 83. When the evidence of concurrent negligence is conflicting, or the facts on which a right to recover are rested are controverted, a jury should pass upon that evidence, and upon those facts. The controlling facts in this case were controverted, the evidence ivas conflicting. It was therefore right to submit them to the jury, as the court did, with a clear and correct statement of the law.

Judgment affirmed.

Immediately after this judgment was entered the counsel for plaintiif in error moved for a re-argument, alleging as a principal reason therefor that only one assignment of error had been considered by the court.

On the 17th of June 1878, Mr. Justice Mercur delivered the following opinion:—

Although our decision mentions and seems to relate to but one assignment of error — that of contributory negligence — yet we considered all the questions raised in the case, so fully and ably argued. both in the paper-book and at the bar.

Motion for re-argument overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 Pa. 216, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-harrisburg-v-saylor-pa-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack