Boden v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Citations

• 77 Pa. Super. 605
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 327

Syllabus

<p>Practice — Appeals—Refusal of binding instructions — Refusal of motion for judgment n. o. v. — Negligence—Contributory negligence —Question for jury.</p> <p>In an action of trespass for damages resulting from negligence where there was conflicting evidence as to negligence and contributory negligence which was submitted to the jury in a charge, fairly and adequately presenting the issues, and the assignments of error relate only to refusal of binding instructions and refusal to enter judgment n. o. v., judgment on the verdict must be affirmed unless the contributory negligence was so clear as to require the court to determine it as a matter of law.</p> <p>In such action, the ease is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence on the part of the plaintiff was that he drove on the tracks of the defendant company, because of the presence of a parked motor truck obstructing the roadway, and was struck by a street car negligently operated by the defendant’s employees which was stationary when he drove on the tracks.</p>