Opinion
March 23, 1934.
April 23, 1934.
Practice — New trial — Case involving issues of fact — Fair charge — Verdict of jury.
Where a case involving an issue of fact is submitted to the jury in a charge which is comprehensive and impartial, the verdict of the jury is conclusive, and a new trial is properly refused.
Before FRAZER, C. J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 232, March T., 1933, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1932, No. 3650, in case of Charles H. Flick v. County of Allegheny. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before EGAN, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned, inter alia, were charge, quoting record.
Wilbur F. Galbraith, for appellant.
Mayer Sniderman, Assistant County Solicitor, with him J. P. Fife, County Solicitor, for appellee.
Argued March 23, 1934.
Plaintiff appeals from refusal of the court below to award a new trial in an action of trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Appellant claims to have been thrown from the rumble seat of an automobile on the night of December 14, 1929, on the road between the towns of Heidelberg and Mount Lebanon in Allegheny County, at a point near a bridge across Chartiers Creek, and asserts the accident was caused by the car's striking a hole in the road which defendant county negligently failed to repair. The jury's verdict was for defendant.
The principal questions raised in the ten assignments of error submitted by appellant relate to the charge of the learned judge of the court below. There was a conflict in testimony as to whether or not the roadway, an improved county highway, was defective at the place of the accident in that a hole, or depression, 3 1/2 feet long, three feet wide, and five inches deep, was permitted to exist in the cartway for a considerable time before the accident. In the circumstances, a clear-cut question of fact was raised for the jury, and we are of opinion the issue was submitted to them in a charge which was both comprehensive and impartial.
Discussion of the other assignments of error is unnecessary. We have examined them fully and find no reversible error in the case.
Judgment affirmed.