Bowling v. Roberts

Citations

• 235 Pa. 89
• 83 A. 600
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 504

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles — Evidence — Identity of machine— Gase for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against tbe owners of an automobile to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the fright of a horse caused by the alleged negligent operation of the automobile, the case is for the jury on the question of identity of the machine, the negligence being established, where the plaintiff testifies that the machine which he saw, was a large one with a “lot of bunting and flags fluttering all over it,” and that he saw no other machine so decorated, while the other evidence in the case shows that the defendant on the day of the accident used a large machine to carry prospective purchasers of lots from a railroad station to the property they were developing, that this machine was decorated with buntings and streamers, and that pamphlets advertising the lots were distributed from it.</p> <p>2. While in such a ease the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove whose machine was responsible for the accident, and he must identify it to the satisfaction of the jury, he is not required to do an imposible thing, but only to produce such evidence as will satisfy the minds of twelve intelligent jurors of the identity of the machine.</p> <p>Mr. Justice Mosciizisker dissents.</p>