Brown v. Winelander

Citations

• 73 Pa. Super. 197
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 205

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobile—Collision—Case for fury.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a collision of two automobiles, the ease is for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence tends to prove that the cause of the accident was that the defendant was not driving on the proper side of the road, and did not give room for an approaching car to pass.</p> <p>Practice, municipal court — Plaintiff’s statement — Averments not denied.</p> <p>Under the act creating the municipal court all facts which the defendant does not deny or aver himself to be ignorant of, and demand proof, shall be deemed to be admitted. The statement that the defendant’s automobile was being driven by his employee and agent is more than a mere averment that the driver was in the employ of tbe defendant, and, in tbe absence of any denial by tbe defendant, it was, under tbe rules of practice of tbe municipal court, sufficient to establish tbe agency of tbe chauffeur.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Statement of claim — Ad damnum clause — Amendment after verdict.</p> <p>Tbe ad damnum clause in tbe plaintiff’s statement may be amended at any time before final judgment in tbe discretion of tbe court.</p>