Berry v. Pittsburg Railways Co.

Citations

• 55 Pa. Super. 289
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 359

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Street railways — Automobile—Collision—Conflicting testi- ■ mony — Charge of court.</p> <p>1. In an action by two plaintiffs against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a collision between a street car and an automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding, where the plaintiffs rest their case upon their own testimony not corroborated by a single witness, and the defendant produces twelve witnesses most of them disinterested who directly contradict the testimony of the plaintiffs in most essential matters, it is reversible error for the trial judge to fail to call the jury’s attention to the lack of corroboration of the testimony of the two plaintiffs and of the very strong preponderance of the testimony in favor of the defendant.</p> <p>2. Where counsel request the.trial judge to instruct the jury upon a particular matter, and states specifically what instruction he desires and such instruction relates to an essential feature of the case, the trial judge should not merely say that counsel was quite right and the court adopted his statement, without further carefully instructing the jury on the questions raised by the request.</p> <p>3. When counsel presents a point couched in proper terms, and which asks the court to refer the questions of fact on which it is predicated to the jury, and for instructions as to the law in case the jury shall find the facts as the counsel contends, then the point ought to be plainly read to the jury and unqualifiedly affirmed.</p> <p>4. A party is entitled to a distinct and responsive answer to his points, if they are properly drawn, present questions that fairly arise, and can be answered by a simple affirmance or refusal.</p>