Elfriede Trafford and Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., and Third-Party v. Paul Trafford, Third-Party

Third Circuit

Elfriede Trafford and Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., and Third-Party v. Paul Trafford, Third-Party

293 F.2d 43, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4040

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 1961

Docket13514_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 F.2d 43 (Elfriede Trafford and Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., and Third-Party v. Paul Trafford, Third-Party) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elfriede Trafford and Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., and Third-Party v. Paul Trafford, Third-Party, 293 F.2d 43, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4040 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a personal injury case arising out of an automobile collision.

This collision occurred November 4, 1956, at the intersection of Thirty-Fourth Street and Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia. The case was tried throughout, from the plaintiff’s opening statement to a submitted and given point for charge on the theory that Thirty-Fourth Street at this point was a through highway. This appears in the very first paragraph of the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff. It further appears in the plaintiff’s point for charge number 8 which the trial judge gave. It reads: “Under the facts of this case, the law pertaining to through highways shall apply. A through highway is one whose entrances, from intersecting highways, have one or more stop signs.” This point was never withdrawn nor did counsel request an instruction that 20 miles per hour was the maximum speed limit. We are now invited to work through a maze of legislation by the Pennsylvania Legislature, the City Council of Philadelphia, the 1950 Charter and the rules *44 established by the Department of Public Safety. As presented, the maze gives one the impression that it would take a Theseus with Ariadne’s web to complete iche journey. We think the Court is not ^required in the present posture of the case to try to follow this maze.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a personal injury case arising out of an automobile collision.

This collision occurred November 4, 1956, at the intersection of Thirty-Fourth Street and Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia. The case was tried throughout, from the plaintiff’s opening statement to a submitted and given point for charge on the theory that Thirty-Fourth Street at this point was a through highway. This appears in the very first paragraph of the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff. It further appears in the plaintiff’s point for charge number 8 which the trial judge gave. It reads: “Under the facts of this case, the law pertaining to through highways shall apply. A through highway is one whose entrances, from intersecting highways, have one or more stop signs.” This point was never withdrawn nor did counsel request an instruction that 20 miles per hour was the maximum speed limit. We are now invited to work through a maze of legislation by the Pennsylvania Legislature, the City Council of Philadelphia, the 1950 Charter and the rules *44 established by the Department of Public Safety. As presented, the maze gives one the impression that it would take a Theseus with Ariadne’s web to complete iche journey. We think the Court is not ^required in the present posture of the case to try to follow this maze.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 F.2d 43, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elfriede-trafford-and-paul-trafford-v-yellow-cab-co-and-third-party-v-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack