Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Co.
This text of 104 A. 588 (Laudenberger v. Easton Transit 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.
Opinion
The judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto was entered on the ground of the contributory negligence of the deceased. This was inevitable under the testimony, and defendant’s tenth and eleventh points should have been affirmed. The learned trial judge so admits in his opinion granting defendant’s motion for judgment, and, on so much of that opinion as points out that no distinction can be made between Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company..248 Pa. 130, and the present case, the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 A. 588, 261 Pa. 288, 1918 Pa. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laudenberger-v-easton-transit-co-pa-1918.