Williams v. D'Amico

78 Pa. Super. 575, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 162
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 3, 1922·No. Appeal, No. 243·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff recovered a verdict based on the jury’s finding, that the defendant had negligently operated his automobile on a public highway, causing it to collide with and injure the plaintiff’s car. There was ample evidence to justify the conclusion reached by the jury, that the defendant was negligently responsible for the collision. The opinion of the trial judge in discharging a rule for a new trial, and one for judgment non obstante veredicto, is a sufficient answer to the appellant’s argument on this appeal. See also Stubb v. Edwards, 260 Pa. 75. For the reasons given in the opinion of the trial judge, the assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Williams v. D'Amico, 78 Pa. Super. 575, 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 162 (Pa. Ct. App. 1922).

78 Pa. Super. 575 (Williams v. D'Amico) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pegg v. General Motors Corp.
391 A.2d 1074 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Santee v. Ungerleider Motor Co.
48 Pa. D. & C. 179 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1943)
Metz v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.
7 A.2d 505 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1939)
Purol, Inc. v. Great Eastern System, Inc.
197 A. 543 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Sensenig v. Kauffman
13 Pa. D. & C. 501 (Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, 1930)
Lloyd v. Noakes
96 Pa. Super. 164 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Dolan v. Burke
89 Pa. Super. 295 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Dolan v. Burke
7 Pa. D. & C. 165 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)