Latchaw v. Hoefner

2 A.2d 722, 332 Pa. 422, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 793
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 26, 1938·No. Appeal, 188·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The conflicting testimony in this case from which the facts and inferences were to be drawn was not free from doubt, and appellee’s contributory negligence cannot be passed on by the court as a matter of law. See Kuntz v. N. Y. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 206 Pa. 162; Altomari v. Kruger, 325 Pa. 235. The charge of the court, considered as a whole, is free from reversible error; appellant’s points corrected any mistake there might have been in it and cleared any doubt in the jury’s mind as to appellee’s contributory negligence. Moreover, if appellant was dissatisfied, ample opportunity was given him to have had the court explain to the jury the law regarding evidence as to contributory negligence. See Kennedy et al. v. *424 Rothrock Co., 261 Pa. 580, 587. The other points raised by appellant are immaterial and, if error at all, they are harmless.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Latchaw v. Hoefner, 2 A.2d 722, 332 Pa. 422, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 793 (Pa. 1938).

2 A.2d 722 (Latchaw v. Hoefner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scranton Lackawanna Trust Co. v. Birbeck
5 A.2d 196 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Konchar v. Cebular
3 A.2d 913 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)