Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Ardis

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Ardis

42 A. 372, 190 Pa. 66, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 980

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 20, 1899

DocketAppeal, No. 319

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 42 A. 372 (Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Ardis) 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

Ryan ex rel. Ryan v. Ardis, 42 A. 372, 190 Pa. 66, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 980 (Pa. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,

This appeal is from the refusal of the court to take off the judgment of nonsuit entered on the trial of an action for per[68]*68sonal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence. No reason of record appears to have been given by the learned court in support of the action complained of, nor does the testimony introduced by the plaintiff disclose any sufficient ground therefor. On the contrary, the evidence was quite sufficient to carry the case to the jury on questions of fact, which, if determined in plaintiff’s favor, would have entitled him to a verdict. The nonsuit cannot be sustained on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. While there may be some evidence from which a juiy might possibly infer that the plaintiff himself was not wholly free from contributory negligence, it is not of such a character as to justify the court in holding as matter of law that he was guilty of any negligence that contributed to his injury. At best, the evidence referred to is barely sufficient to warrant submission of the question to a jury. Whether the plaintiff was or was not guilty of contributory negligence must be inferred from all the facts and circumstances di&'closed by the testimony, and such inferences of fact are for the jury and not for the court: Merriman v. Phillipsburg Borough, 158 Pa. 78; Borough of Easton v. Neff, 102 Pa. 474.

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the testimony introduced by the plaintiff. It evidently tended to sustain his claim, and clearly involved questions of fact which were for the determination of the jury. We are all of opinion that there is nothing in it to justify the court in refusing to take off the judgment of nonsuit.

Judgment reversed and procedendo awarded.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Sterrett,

This appeal is from the refusal of the court to take off the judgment of nonsuit entered on the trial of an action for per[68]*68sonal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence. No reason of record appears to have been given by the learned court in support of the action complained of, nor does the testimony introduced by the plaintiff disclose any sufficient ground therefor. On the contrary, the evidence was quite sufficient to carry the case to the jury on questions of fact, which, if determined in plaintiff’s favor, would have entitled him to a verdict. The nonsuit cannot be sustained on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. While there may be some evidence from which a juiy might possibly infer that the plaintiff himself was not wholly free from contributory negligence, it is not of such a character as to justify the court in holding as matter of law that he was guilty of any negligence that contributed to his injury. At best, the evidence referred to is barely sufficient to warrant submission of the question to a jury. Whether the plaintiff was or was not guilty of contributory negligence must be inferred from all the facts and circumstances di&'closed by the testimony, and such inferences of fact are for the jury and not for the court: Merriman v. Phillipsburg Borough, 158 Pa. 78; Borough of Easton v. Neff, 102 Pa. 474.

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to the testimony introduced by the plaintiff. It evidently tended to sustain his claim, and clearly involved questions of fact which were for the determination of the jury. We are all of opinion that there is nothing in it to justify the court in refusing to take off the judgment of nonsuit.

Judgment reversed and procedendo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A. 372, 190 Pa. 66, 1899 Pa. LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-ex-rel-ryan-v-ardis-pa-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack