Long v. St. Clair Borough
97 A. 931, 253 Pa. 92, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 788
Opinion
Under the evidence presented by the plaintiff there was a presumption that the defendant had been negligent: Alexander v. Nanticoke Light Co., 209 Pa. 571; Delahunt v. United Telephone & Telegraph Co., 215 Pa. 241; and this presumption was not so clearly overcome that the defendant’s point asking that a verdict be directed in its favor ought to have been affirmed. Nothing in the assignments o£ error calls for a retrial of the case, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Long v. St. Clair Borough, 97 A. 931, 253 Pa. 92, 1916 Pa. LEXIS 788 (Pa. 1916).
97 A. 931 (Long v. St. Clair Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Fox v. Keystone Telephone Co.
192 A. 116 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Derrick v. Harwood Electric Co.
111 A. 48 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)