Ford v. Deigendesch

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ford v. Deigendesch

104 A. 573, 261 Pa. 247, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 722

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1918

DocketAppeal, No. 347

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A. 573 (Ford v. Deigendesch) 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

Ford v. Deigendesch, 104 A. 573, 261 Pa. 247, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 722 (Pa. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case shows that an employee of defendant drove defendant’s horse at a trot, with a loose rein, through a narrow roadway, some six and a half feet in width, bordered by a sidewalk only two feet in width. It appears that the horse suddenly shied, and moved sidewise, so that the wheel of the wagon to which he was attached, was thrown upon the narrow sidewalk, striking and injuring the plaintiff, a small boy. Whether or not the driver exercised due care, under the circumstances, in permitting the horse to travel at such a rate of speed, or whether it ivas careless in him to drive with a slack rein at that time and place, were questions for the jury to determine. Binding instructions in favor of defendant were properly refused, and the question of the driver’s negligence was submitted to the jury in a charge to which no exception was taken.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case shows that an employee of defendant drove defendant’s horse at a trot, with a loose rein, through a narrow roadway, some six and a half feet in width, bordered by a sidewalk only two feet in width. It appears that the horse suddenly shied, and moved sidewise, so that the wheel of the wagon to which he was attached, was thrown upon the narrow sidewalk, striking and injuring the plaintiff, a small boy. Whether or not the driver exercised due care, under the circumstances, in permitting the horse to travel at such a rate of speed, or whether it ivas careless in him to drive with a slack rein at that time and place, were questions for the jury to determine. Binding instructions in favor of defendant were properly refused, and the question of the driver’s negligence was submitted to the jury in a charge to which no exception was taken.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A. 573, 261 Pa. 247, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-deigendesch-pa-1918.