Muhlhause v. Monongahela Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Muhlhause v. Monongahela Street Railway Co.

50 A. 940, 201 Pa. 244, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 813

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 6, 1902

DocketNo. 2; Appeal, No. 78

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A. 940 (Muhlhause v. Monongahela Street Railway 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

Muhlhause v. Monongahela Street Railway Co., 50 A. 940, 201 Pa. 244, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 813 (Pa. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestbezat,

This action was brought by Adam Mulhause against the defendant company to recover damages which he sustained by reason of the injuries received by his minor son at Kennywood Park on the evening of September 9, 1900. This case arises out of the same occurrence for which an action was brought by the son and the facts in the two cases are the same. We file herewith an opinion in that case affirming the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff (ante_p. 235). For the reasons there given this judgment must be affirmed. In this case the defendant alleges that the father was guilty of negligence in permitting his son to go to the park under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. The question was properly submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge and the finding was against the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestbezat,

This action was brought by Adam Mulhause against the defendant company to recover damages which he sustained by reason of the injuries received by his minor son at Kennywood Park on the evening of September 9, 1900. This case arises out of the same occurrence for which an action was brought by the son and the facts in the two cases are the same. We file herewith an opinion in that case affirming the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff (ante_p. 235). For the reasons there given this judgment must be affirmed. In this case the defendant alleges that the father was guilty of negligence in permitting his son to go to the park under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. The question was properly submitted to the jury by the learned trial judge and the finding was against the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A. 940, 201 Pa. 244, 1902 Pa. LEXIS 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muhlhause-v-monongahela-street-railway-co-pa-1902.