Hettrick v. Torrance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hettrick v. Torrance

16 A.2d 152, 142 Pa. Super. 271, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 550

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 17, 1940

DocketAppeals, 220, 221

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.2d 152 (Hettrick v. Torrance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hettrick v. Torrance, 16 A.2d 152, 142 Pa. Super. 271, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 550 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case against two defendants grew out of an automobile collision, and was tried before a judge without a jury. Under the evidence, the negligence of the respective defendants and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were questions of fact. While there was some slight discrepancy between the testimony of *272 the plaintiff and that of one of his witnesses, as respects the weather conditions, it was for the trial judge to reconcile their differences, if possible, or decide which was to be accepted as correct. (McMahon v. Reading Transit & Light Co., 280 Pa. 199, 202, 124 A. 330). His finding in favor of the plaintiff is as binding upon us as if it were the verdict of a jury. Moreover, it is only fair to say that the driver of defendant Torrance’s car, (defendant and appellant in No. 221), called by him as a witness, testified: “It was drizzling that night, very misty, and you could not see very good.”

The judgments are severally affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case against two defendants grew out of an automobile collision, and was tried before a judge without a jury. Under the evidence, the negligence of the respective defendants and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were questions of fact. While there was some slight discrepancy between the testimony of *272 the plaintiff and that of one of his witnesses, as respects the weather conditions, it was for the trial judge to reconcile their differences, if possible, or decide which was to be accepted as correct. (McMahon v. Reading Transit & Light Co., 280 Pa. 199, 202, 124 A. 330). His finding in favor of the plaintiff is as binding upon us as if it were the verdict of a jury. Moreover, it is only fair to say that the driver of defendant Torrance’s car, (defendant and appellant in No. 221), called by him as a witness, testified: “It was drizzling that night, very misty, and you could not see very good.”

The judgments are severally affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.2d 152, 142 Pa. Super. 271, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hettrick-v-torrance-pasuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack