Wood v. Bridgeport Borough

22 A. 752, 143 Pa. 167, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 914
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 5, 1891·No. No. 8·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion,

Mr. Justice Sterrett:

It is quite clear, from an examination of the testimony in this case, that it involved the questions of negligence on the part of the borough authorities, and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. There was also some conflict of testimony, and therefore uncertainty, as to some of the facts bearing on each of these questions respectively. It follows that there was no error in refusing to charge, as requested by defendant, “ that under all the evidence,.....the verdict should be for the defendant,” or in submitting both the questions above stated to the jury. That was done in a clear, impartial, and comprehensive charge in which we discover no error, especially in those portions thereof recited in the first and second specifications. Neither of the assignments of error is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wood v. Bridgeport Borough, 22 A. 752, 143 Pa. 167, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 914 (Pa. 1891).

22 A. 752 (Wood v. Bridgeport Borough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rodgers v. Yellow Cab Co.
147 A.2d 611 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1959)
Wells v. City of Lisbon
128 N.W. 308 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1910)