Papa v. Helvenston

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Papa v. Helvenston

25 A.2d 702, 344 Pa. 453, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 404

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 1942

DocketAppeals, 72 and 73

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.2d 702 (Papa v. Helvenston) 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

Papa v. Helvenston, 25 A.2d 702, 344 Pa. 453, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 404 (Pa. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There is no merit in these appeals, which were taken when the court below refused a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict for defendant. The negligence of the minor plaintiff, fourteen years of age, who ran into the highway and back again and immediately in front of defendant’s automobile, was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the jury. The testimony makes it perfectly clear that defendant was in no way responsible for the accident.

The reasons advanced in support of the motion for a new trial are little more than excuses. It is claimed that the charge of the court was inadequate and erroneous and that it misled and confused the jury. We have thoroughly examined each specified objection, and find no error in the instructions which would warrant the granting of a new trial. We are satisfied the jury properly disposed of this case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

There is no merit in these appeals, which were taken when the court below refused a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict for defendant. The negligence of the minor plaintiff, fourteen years of age, who ran into the highway and back again and immediately in front of defendant’s automobile, was demonstrated to the satisfaction of the jury. The testimony makes it perfectly clear that defendant was in no way responsible for the accident.

The reasons advanced in support of the motion for a new trial are little more than excuses. It is claimed that the charge of the court was inadequate and erroneous and that it misled and confused the jury. We have thoroughly examined each specified objection, and find no error in the instructions which would warrant the granting of a new trial. We are satisfied the jury properly disposed of this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.2d 702, 344 Pa. 453, 1942 Pa. LEXIS 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papa-v-helvenston-pa-1942.