Wood v. Bridgeport Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Wood v. Bridgeport Borough

22 A. 752, 143 Pa. 167, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 914

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 5, 1891

DocketNo. 8

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A. 752 (Wood v. Bridgeport Borough) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A. 752, 143 Pa. 167, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-bridgeport-borough-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack