Kraft v. Carpenter

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kraft v. Carpenter

23 A.2d 493, 343 Pa. 404, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 290

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 3, 1941

DocketAppeal, 229

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.2d 493 (Kraft v. Carpenter) 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

Kraft v. Carpenter, 23 A.2d 493, 343 Pa. 404, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 290 (Pa. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff by being bitten by defendant’s dog. The verdict was for defendant. The trial judge granted a new trial, stating as his reason that he had improperly, instructed the jury on the law as laid down in Fink v. Miller, 330 Pa. 193, 198 A. 666, and had put too heavy a burden upon plaintiff. We think the judge was correct in this conclusion. Under these circumstances, we will not interfere with the grant of a new trial. .

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused to plaintiff by being bitten by defendant’s dog. The verdict was for defendant. The trial judge granted a new trial, stating as his reason that he had improperly, instructed the jury on the law as laid down in Fink v. Miller, 330 Pa. 193, 198 A. 666, and had put too heavy a burden upon plaintiff. We think the judge was correct in this conclusion. Under these circumstances, we will not interfere with the grant of a new trial. .

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.2d 493, 343 Pa. 404, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraft-v-carpenter-pa-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack