Lee v. Penn-Harris Taxi Service Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lee v. Penn-Harris Taxi Service Co.

194 A.2d 188, 412 Pa. 287

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 10, 1963

DocketAppeal, No. 41

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.2d 188 (Lee v. Penn-Harris Taxi Service 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

Lee v. Penn-Harris Taxi Service Co., 194 A.2d 188, 412 Pa. 287 (Pa. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

David E. Lee, a minor, was involved in an intersection accident with a vehicle owned by appellant and operated by its employee. A jury trial resulted in verdicts for the minor and his parents, in the sums of $12,000 and $1,338 respectively.

[288]*288Appellant’s motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were refused and judgments were entered on the jury verdicts; this appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the testimony of appellees’ witnesses convicts appellees of contributory negligence and that his motion for judgment n.o.v. should therefore have been granted. We have often stated that contributory negligence can be declared as a matter of law only in clear cases and where there is no room for fair and reasonable disagreement as to its existence. Weidemoyer v. Swartz, 407 Pa. 282, 180 A. 2d 19 (1962); McKniff v. Wilson, 404 Pa. 647, 172 A. 2d 801 (1961). An examination of the record in this case discloses that the question of appellees’ contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

Appellant also urges that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, relative to the duty of appellant’s driver at the intersection. We find no error in the charge, it having properly set forth the law on the subject. Cf. Eisert v. Jones, 408 Pa. 73, 182 A. 2d 717 (1962).

Judgments affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

David E. Lee, a minor, was involved in an intersection accident with a vehicle owned by appellant and operated by its employee. A jury trial resulted in verdicts for the minor and his parents, in the sums of $12,000 and $1,338 respectively.

[288]*288Appellant’s motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were refused and judgments were entered on the jury verdicts; this appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the testimony of appellees’ witnesses convicts appellees of contributory negligence and that his motion for judgment n.o.v. should therefore have been granted. We have often stated that contributory negligence can be declared as a matter of law only in clear cases and where there is no room for fair and reasonable disagreement as to its existence. Weidemoyer v. Swartz, 407 Pa. 282, 180 A. 2d 19 (1962); McKniff v. Wilson, 404 Pa. 647, 172 A. 2d 801 (1961). An examination of the record in this case discloses that the question of appellees’ contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

Appellant also urges that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, relative to the duty of appellant’s driver at the intersection. We find no error in the charge, it having properly set forth the law on the subject. Cf. Eisert v. Jones, 408 Pa. 73, 182 A. 2d 717 (1962).

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.2d 188, 412 Pa. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-penn-harris-taxi-service-co-pa-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack