Fox v. Pasco

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Fox v. Pasco

69 A.2d 375, 363 Pa. 229, 1949 Pa. LEXIS 487

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 3, 1949

DocketAppeal, 151

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.2d 375 (Fox v. Pasco) 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

Fox v. Pasco, 69 A.2d 375, 363 Pa. 229, 1949 Pa. LEXIS 487 (Pa. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Edward Pox, plaintiff, brought this action against Walter Pasco, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a head-on collision between a truck owned and operated by defendant and an automobile owned by Allegheny County in which plaintiff was a passenger. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiff now appeals.

Plaintiff’s sole argument is that the charge to which he took only a general exception, contained errors and omissions. This case is clearly ruled by Steele v. France, 363 Pa. 165, 69 A. 2d 368, and Voitasefski v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co., 363 Pa. 220, 69 A. 2d 370, where we restated the well-established principle that under a general exception only basic and fundamental errors ,ill be considered by this Court. Here, the learned trial judge carefully and completely summarized the evidence. His statement of the law was equally clear, correct and unbiased. Cer *231 tainly under a general exception, plaintiff may not complain that a charge as thorough and unprejudiced as this one failed to emphasize sufficiently his position.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Edward Pox, plaintiff, brought this action against Walter Pasco, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a head-on collision between a truck owned and operated by defendant and an automobile owned by Allegheny County in which plaintiff was a passenger. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiff now appeals.

Plaintiff’s sole argument is that the charge to which he took only a general exception, contained errors and omissions. This case is clearly ruled by Steele v. France, 363 Pa. 165, 69 A. 2d 368, and Voitasefski v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co., 363 Pa. 220, 69 A. 2d 370, where we restated the well-established principle that under a general exception only basic and fundamental errors ,ill be considered by this Court. Here, the learned trial judge carefully and completely summarized the evidence. His statement of the law was equally clear, correct and unbiased. Cer *231 tainly under a general exception, plaintiff may not complain that a charge as thorough and unprejudiced as this one failed to emphasize sufficiently his position.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.2d 375, 363 Pa. 229, 1949 Pa. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-pasco-pa-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack