Opinion
October 24, 1924.
February 27, 1925.
Negligence — Automobiles — Trolley cars — Collision with automobile — Case for jury — Verdict for plaintiff.
In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile and trolley car, the case was for the jury, and a verdict for plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence of the plaintiff was that her machine was struck by a trolley car, which was approximately 260 feet away when she first drove on the tracks of the defendant company, in attempting to extricate her machine from between two parked automobiles.
Appeal, No. 129, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Feb. T., 1923, No. 50, on verdict for plaintiff in the case of Lydia H. Mitchell v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
Before ORLADY, P.J., PORTER, HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN and GAWTHROP, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before CRANE, J.
From the record it appeared that the plaintiff was the occupant of an automobile which she had parked along a city street. While attempting to extricate her machine from traffic, she was struck by a street car proceeding in the same direction. According to the testimony of the plaintiff her automobile crossed the rails of the defendant company when the street car was about 260 feet away, and she was five minutes on the track before her automobile was struck. This was denied by the defendant, and the case was submitted to the jury.
Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $600, and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned among others, were refusal of defendant's motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial.
Lewis C. Cassidy, for appellant, cited: Kline v. Tractor Co., 4 Erie 51; Randall v. Phila. R.T. Co., 62 Pa. Super. 531; Cornell v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 54 Pa. Super. 230.
J. Verner Harold, and with him, Graham Garaguso, for appellee, cited: Byrne v. Ry. Co., 19 Pa. Super. 531; Waechter v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 129; Clayton v. Traction Co., 3 Pa. Super. 107; Huth v. Cent. R. of N.J., 82 Pa. Super. 517; Fisher v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 82 Pa. Super. 262; Ingraham v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., Ib. 132.
Argued October 24, 1924.
The defendant appeals from a verdict recovered against it for $600, asserting that the verdict was against the evidence and against the law. Its motion for a new trial was dismissed, and judgment was entered on the verdict.
We are not favored with an opinion by the trial judge, but after a careful examination of all the evidence and the charge to the jury, we are satisfied that the court rightly refused the defendant's point for binding instructions, and that the disputed facts were fairly submitted to the only tribunal provided by law to dispose of them.
The judgment is affirmed.