Eagleson v. Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Eagleson v. Pittsburgh

148 A. 108, 298 Pa. 191, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 592

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 9, 1929

DocketAppeal, 109

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A. 108 (Eagleson v. Pittsburgh) 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

Eagleson v. Pittsburgh, 148 A. 108, 298 Pa. 191, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 592 (Pa. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $25,000, to compensate him for physical injuries found to have been caused by the negligence of defendant city. Defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v.; the court below entered the following order: “The motion for judgment n. o. v. is overruled, and a new trial is granted.” Plaintiff appealed from the award of a new trial. The trial judge, who wrote the opinion of the court below, saw the witnesses, including the injured plaintiff, and heard the testimony. He was in a much better position to decide as to the excessiveness of the verdict than we possibly could be. The order entered was one peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and we are not convinced of abuse of that discretion.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $25,000, to compensate him for physical injuries found to have been caused by the negligence of defendant city. Defendant moved for a new trial and for judgment n. o. v.; the court below entered the following order: “The motion for judgment n. o. v. is overruled, and a new trial is granted.” Plaintiff appealed from the award of a new trial. The trial judge, who wrote the opinion of the court below, saw the witnesses, including the injured plaintiff, and heard the testimony. He was in a much better position to decide as to the excessiveness of the verdict than we possibly could be. The order entered was one peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and we are not convinced of abuse of that discretion.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A. 108, 298 Pa. 191, 1929 Pa. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagleson-v-pittsburgh-pa-1929.