Kreider v. Lancaster, Elizabethtown & Middletown Turnpike Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Kreider v. Lancaster, Elizabethtown & Middletown Turnpike Co.

29 A. 721, 162 Pa. 537, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1013

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 11, 1894

DocketAppeal, No. 42

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A. 721 (Kreider v. Lancaster, Elizabethtown & Middletown Turnpike Co.) 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

Kreider v. Lancaster, Elizabethtown & Middletown Turnpike Co., 29 A. 721, 162 Pa. 537, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1013 (Pa. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This case involved questions of fact which were for the exclusive determination of the jury; and to them it was fairly submitted with instructions that were fully adequate and at the same time free from substantial error.

There was an abundance of testimony to warrant the jury in [539]*539finding, as they evidently did, that the turnpike company neglected to keep its road in a reasonably safe condition for travel, and as one of the results of that negligence plaintiff sustained the injuries of which he complains. In view of the evidence, it would have been impossible for them to have found otherwise. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that would justify us in disturbing the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This case involved questions of fact which were for the exclusive determination of the jury; and to them it was fairly submitted with instructions that were fully adequate and at the same time free from substantial error.

There was an abundance of testimony to warrant the jury in [539]*539finding, as they evidently did, that the turnpike company neglected to keep its road in a reasonably safe condition for travel, and as one of the results of that negligence plaintiff sustained the injuries of which he complains. In view of the evidence, it would have been impossible for them to have found otherwise. There is nothing in either of the specifications of error that would justify us in disturbing the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A. 721, 162 Pa. 537, 1894 Pa. LEXIS 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreider-v-lancaster-elizabethtown-middletown-turnpike-co-pa-1894.