Ludwig v. Ewell

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Ludwig v. Ewell

18 A.2d 75, 142 Pa. Super. 580, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 278

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 13, 1940

DocketAppeal, 291

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.2d 75 (Ludwig v. Ewell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ludwig v. Ewell, 18 A.2d 75, 142 Pa. Super. 580, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 278 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This was an action of trespass growing out of a collision between two motor trucks, which occurred at a narrow bridge on State Highway Route No. 73. The evidence was conflicting as to who was first at the bridge and who was at fault. It raised issues of fact as to the negligence of the defendant’s driver and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s driver, which, in our opinion, were for the jury to decide. Their verdict was for the plaintiff.

The case was submitted to the jury in a fair and adequate charge, to which the appellant took no exception beyond the refusal of his point for binding instructions, the affirmance of which, under all the testimony, would have been error.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

This was an action of trespass growing out of a collision between two motor trucks, which occurred at a narrow bridge on State Highway Route No. 73. The evidence was conflicting as to who was first at the bridge and who was at fault. It raised issues of fact as to the negligence of the defendant’s driver and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff’s driver, which, in our opinion, were for the jury to decide. Their verdict was for the plaintiff.

The case was submitted to the jury in a fair and adequate charge, to which the appellant took no exception beyond the refusal of his point for binding instructions, the affirmance of which, under all the testimony, would have been error.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.2d 75, 142 Pa. Super. 580, 1941 Pa. Super. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludwig-v-ewell-pasuperct-1940.