Olwell v. Rapp

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Olwell v. Rapp

181 A. 456, 119 Pa. Super. 576, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 7, 1935

DocketAppeal, 266

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A. 456 (Olwell v. Rapp) 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

Olwell v. Rapp, 181 A. 456, 119 Pa. Super. 576, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Tbe plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by the defendant’s automobile, driven by defendant’s son, on the defendant’s business. There was evidence from which the jury might find that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the automobile. Plaintiff’s body and lower right leg were unquestionably injured and he sustained substantial damages in consequence.

We will not reverse a judgment, entered upon a verdict for a reasonable amount, and grant a new trial merely because the plaintiff, on the trial, testified that his leg had been kept in bandages by his physician for four weeks, while the attending surgeon testified that it was in a cast for that length of time. That is the only ground for a new trial urged upon us. If the leg was severely injured, the variance in the testimony, as to the treatment accorded it, is not very material.

The evidence clearly established that plaintiff was severely hurt and confined to the house for about six weeks because of an injured leg resulting from an accident for which defendant was responsible, and was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

Tbe plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by the defendant’s automobile, driven by defendant’s son, on the defendant’s business. There was evidence from which the jury might find that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the automobile. Plaintiff’s body and lower right leg were unquestionably injured and he sustained substantial damages in consequence.

We will not reverse a judgment, entered upon a verdict for a reasonable amount, and grant a new trial merely because the plaintiff, on the trial, testified that his leg had been kept in bandages by his physician for four weeks, while the attending surgeon testified that it was in a cast for that length of time. That is the only ground for a new trial urged upon us. If the leg was severely injured, the variance in the testimony, as to the treatment accorded it, is not very material.

The evidence clearly established that plaintiff was severely hurt and confined to the house for about six weeks because of an injured leg resulting from an accident for which defendant was responsible, and was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A. 456, 119 Pa. Super. 576, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olwell-v-rapp-pasuperct-1935.