Thomas v. Abdo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Thomas v. Abdo

87 A.2d 305, 370 Pa. 145, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 322

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 24, 1952

DocketAppeal, No. 36

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 A.2d 305 (Thomas v. Abdo) 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

Thomas v. Abdo, 87 A.2d 305, 370 Pa. 145, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 322 (Pa. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Margaret Mary Thomas was injured when she slipped on a banana peel on a sidewalk in front of defendants’ property. The accident occurred on December 8, 1947, and on March 5, 1948, the middle finger of her left hand was amputated, allegedly as a result of the fall. The jury returned a verdict for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed from the order of the court below denying their motion for a new trial.

Three questions were raised in this appeal, two of which are concerned with the issue of damages. In view of the verdict that defendants- were not negligent, these two questions are irrelevant and need not be considered here-. Plaintiffs’ last- contention is that the [146]*146trial judge failed to define legal cause in Ms charge to the jury. This is refuted by an examination of the record. In at least three places in his charge, the trial judge correctly and properly discussed causation in terms that the jury could readily understand. Anything further that he might have said would not have assisted the jury in its determination of the case.

On the record in this case, the jury’s verdict was justified. There being no error of law in the trial of the case, the motion for a new trial was properly denied.

Order affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Margaret Mary Thomas was injured when she slipped on a banana peel on a sidewalk in front of defendants’ property. The accident occurred on December 8, 1947, and on March 5, 1948, the middle finger of her left hand was amputated, allegedly as a result of the fall. The jury returned a verdict for defendants and plaintiffs have appealed from the order of the court below denying their motion for a new trial.

Three questions were raised in this appeal, two of which are concerned with the issue of damages. In view of the verdict that defendants- were not negligent, these two questions are irrelevant and need not be considered here-. Plaintiffs’ last- contention is that the [146]*146trial judge failed to define legal cause in Ms charge to the jury. This is refuted by an examination of the record. In at least three places in his charge, the trial judge correctly and properly discussed causation in terms that the jury could readily understand. Anything further that he might have said would not have assisted the jury in its determination of the case.

On the record in this case, the jury’s verdict was justified. There being no error of law in the trial of the case, the motion for a new trial was properly denied.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.2d 305, 370 Pa. 145, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-abdo-pa-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack