Vervaeke v. Adams Express Co.

79 A. 764, 230 Pa. 647, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 663
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 20, 1911·No. Appeal, No. 185·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Leave to amend the statement of claim was properly [651] allowed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned judge of the common pleas, making absolute the plaintiff’s rule for that purpose. The question whether the rule of law in this state, which prohibits a common carrier from limiting its liability for negligence, is abrogated by the Interstate Commerce Act, was decided at the trial in accordance with Wright v. Adams Express Co., 43 Pa. Superior Ct. 40, the judgment in which case we have affirmed in an opinion handed down with this, ante, p. 635.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Vervaeke v. Adams Express Co., 79 A. 764, 230 Pa. 647, 1911 Pa. LEXIS 663 (Pa. 1911).

79 A. 764 (Vervaeke v. Adams Express Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Severance v. Heyl & Patterson
174 A. 787 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
Lehigh National Bank v. Seyfried
128 A. 536 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1925)
Joynes v. Pennsylvania Railroad
83 A. 318 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)