Troy v. Kiggins

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Troy v. Kiggins

132 A.2d 189, 389 Pa. 59, 1957 Pa. LEXIS 338

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 27, 1957

DocketAppeals, Nos. 17 and 18

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.2d 189 (Troy v. Kiggins) 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

Troy v. Kiggins, 132 A.2d 189, 389 Pa. 59, 1957 Pa. LEXIS 338 (Pa. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

An action of trespass for personal injuries arising out of a collision between a street car and an automobile was brought by Troy, a passenger on the street car, against both the Pittsburgh Railways Company, and Kiggins, the operator of the automobile. Kiggins, in turn, brought suit against the Railways Company for damage to his automobile. The actions were consolidated for trial, and the jury returned verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs against the Railways Company, and for Kiggins as defendant in Troy’s suit. From judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, en banc, refusing the defendant Railways Company’s motions for judgments n.o.v. and new trials in the two actions, these appeals are taken.

No useful purpose would be served by relating in detail the circumstances of the accident. After a thorough review of the complete record we are convinced [61]*61that the court below did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant’s motions, nor in refusing to reduce the amount of the verdict recovered by the plaintiff, Troy.

Judgments affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

An action of trespass for personal injuries arising out of a collision between a street car and an automobile was brought by Troy, a passenger on the street car, against both the Pittsburgh Railways Company, and Kiggins, the operator of the automobile. Kiggins, in turn, brought suit against the Railways Company for damage to his automobile. The actions were consolidated for trial, and the jury returned verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs against the Railways Company, and for Kiggins as defendant in Troy’s suit. From judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, en banc, refusing the defendant Railways Company’s motions for judgments n.o.v. and new trials in the two actions, these appeals are taken.

No useful purpose would be served by relating in detail the circumstances of the accident. After a thorough review of the complete record we are convinced [61]*61that the court below did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant’s motions, nor in refusing to reduce the amount of the verdict recovered by the plaintiff, Troy.

Judgments affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.2d 189, 389 Pa. 59, 1957 Pa. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-v-kiggins-pa-1957.