Robertson v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Robertson v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.

163 A. 530, 309 Pa. 293, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 713

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 10, 1932

DocketAppeal, 174

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 A. 530 (Robertson v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc.) 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

Robertson v. Jewel Tea Co., Inc., 163 A. 530, 309 Pa. 293, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 713 (Pa. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Appellant makes two complaints (1) that its motion for judgment, based on contributory negligence, and lack of defendant’s negligence, should have been granted; and (2) that the verdict was excessive.

1. Plaintiff was run down by defendant’s truck on a rainy November evening while crossing Market Street, the principal business street in the City of Steubenville, Ohio. The driver testified that it was a “very bad night;” he could see but 30 feet ahead of him; he did not see plaintiff, or even know what he struck until after he stopped and returned to where plaintiff and others then were. He was driving eastward, approaching the intersection of McDowell Street at a point where street cars turn from that street eastward into Market Street and then immediately stop at a regular stopping point. The driver saw the car enter Market Street and knew that it stopped there. Whether such driving was negligent, in the circumstances, was for the jury. Plaintiff said he first saw the truck 200 feet away and, when he was “not quite to the center of the street,” saw that it was about “half a block [perhaps 100 feet] away,” and that he then thought he had sufficient time to complete the crossing if defendant approached the intersecting street and car-stop at reasonable speed, as he thought defendant was doing. In such circumstance his conduct was also for the jury: Cronmuller v. Evening Telegraph Co., 232 Pa. 14, 81 A. 58.

2. The second point is not open here; it was withdrawn with the motion for a new trial in the court below, which counsel stated he would not press. If review of the amount of a verdict is desired, the. subject should be *296 presented below so that, when considered in this court, it may be done in the light of the trial court’s opinion of the action of the jury; compare King v. Equitable Gas Co., 307 Pa. 287, 295 et seq., 161 A. 65.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Linn,

Appellant makes two complaints (1) that its motion for judgment, based on contributory negligence, and lack of defendant’s negligence, should have been granted; and (2) that the verdict was excessive.

1. Plaintiff was run down by defendant’s truck on a rainy November evening while crossing Market Street, the principal business street in the City of Steubenville, Ohio. The driver testified that it was a “very bad night;” he could see but 30 feet ahead of him; he did not see plaintiff, or even know what he struck until after he stopped and returned to where plaintiff and others then were. He was driving eastward, approaching the intersection of McDowell Street at a point where street cars turn from that street eastward into Market Street and then immediately stop at a regular stopping point. The driver saw the car enter Market Street and knew that it stopped there. Whether such driving was negligent, in the circumstances, was for the jury. Plaintiff said he first saw the truck 200 feet away and, when he was “not quite to the center of the street,” saw that it was about “half a block [perhaps 100 feet] away,” and that he then thought he had sufficient time to complete the crossing if defendant approached the intersecting street and car-stop at reasonable speed, as he thought defendant was doing. In such circumstance his conduct was also for the jury: Cronmuller v. Evening Telegraph Co., 232 Pa. 14, 81 A. 58.

2. The second point is not open here; it was withdrawn with the motion for a new trial in the court below, which counsel stated he would not press. If review of the amount of a verdict is desired, the. subject should be *296 presented below so that, when considered in this court, it may be done in the light of the trial court’s opinion of the action of the jury; compare King v. Equitable Gas Co., 307 Pa. 287, 295 et seq., 161 A. 65.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A. 530, 309 Pa. 293, 1932 Pa. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-jewel-tea-co-inc-pa-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack