Ragan v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ragan v. Pennsylvania Railroad

42 A. 287, 189 Pa. 572, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 694

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 30, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 221

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A. 287 (Ragan v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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

Ragan v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 42 A. 287, 189 Pa. 572, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 694 (Pa. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

A careful consideration of the testimony in this case has satisfied us that it presented questions of fact which the learned trial judge was bound to submit to the jury for their determination ; and he therefore rightly refused to affirm defendant’s point that “ under all the evidence .... the verdict should be for the defendant.” The case involved the question of defendant company’s negligence as the proximate cause of the injury which resulted in the death of plaintiff’s husband, and also the question of his contributory negligence; as to both of which the testimony was more or less conflicting. It was submitted to the jury in a clear, correct and fully adequate charge, of which there is no complaint. The only subject of complaint is the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. In view of the testimony that would have been improper.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam,

A careful consideration of the testimony in this case has satisfied us that it presented questions of fact which the learned trial judge was bound to submit to the jury for their determination ; and he therefore rightly refused to affirm defendant’s point that “ under all the evidence .... the verdict should be for the defendant.” The case involved the question of defendant company’s negligence as the proximate cause of the injury which resulted in the death of plaintiff’s husband, and also the question of his contributory negligence; as to both of which the testimony was more or less conflicting. It was submitted to the jury in a clear, correct and fully adequate charge, of which there is no complaint. The only subject of complaint is the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. In view of the testimony that would have been improper.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A. 287, 189 Pa. 572, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragan-v-pennsylvania-railroad-pa-1899.