Flemming v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Flemming v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co.

59 Pa. Super. 505, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 107

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 19, 1915·No. Appeals, Nos. 251 and 252·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

Two verdicts were returned by the jury and the two appeals are presented in one argument. The plaintiff’s right to recover depended entirely on oral testimony and the controverted facts were so fairly submitted by the trial judge that no exception was taken to his charge. The appellant contends that binding instructions should have been given in its favor, and subsequently that a judgment should have been entered non obstante veredicto.

The fair preponderance of the testimony was in favor of the defendant’s claim as to the cause of the accident, and the jury might well have found that Miss Fleming was mistaken in regard to the fall of snow, and the condition of the car step when she had her accident, but her statements were positive, and under the authority of Neslie v. Second & Third St. Pass. Ry. Co., 113 Pa. 300, and Sutton v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 230 Pa. 523, the controverted facts were properly submitted to the jury.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

Two verdicts were returned by the jury and the two appeals are presented in one argument. The plaintiff’s right to recover depended entirely on oral testimony and the controverted facts were so fairly submitted by the trial judge that no exception was taken to his charge. The appellant contends that binding instructions should have been given in its favor, and subsequently that a judgment should have been entered non obstante veredicto.

The fair preponderance of the testimony was in favor of the defendant’s claim as to the cause of the accident, and the jury might well have found that Miss Fleming was mistaken in regard to the fall of snow, and the condition of the car step when she had her accident, but her statements were positive, and under the authority of Neslie v. Second & Third St. Pass. Ry. Co., 113 Pa. 300, and Sutton v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 230 Pa. 523, the controverted facts were properly submitted to the jury.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.

Flemming v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 59 Pa. Super. 505, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 107 (Pa. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

59 Pa. Super. 505 (Flemming v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related