Danko v. Pittsburg Railways Co.

Citations

• 230 Pa. 295
• 79 A. 511
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 604

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Streét railroads — Evidence—Signed statement — Discrepancies — Credibility of witness.</p> <p>1. Where in an action to recover damages for personal injuries the testimony in chief of the only witness called by plaintiff to describe the accident makes out a clear case for the jury, but on cross-examination he is confronted with a statement which he signed two days after the accident, at the instance of an employee of the defendant company, and radically inconsistent with his testimony in chief, of which statement he says “If my signature is there, it must be correct” but which he testifies without contradiction he signed without reading or knowing its contents, the credibility of the witness is for the jury, not the court, and if a verdict has been found for plaintiff it is error for the court to enter judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.</p> <p>2. In such a case, the duty of the court is limited to calling the jury’s attention to the discrepancy between the written statement and the testimony of the witness in chief, and to properly cautioning them as to their duty in passing on his credibility.</p> <p>3. When on part of the testimony of a witness a plaintiff is plainly entitled to go to a jury, while on the other part of it he plainly is not, or when the different parts of the testimony of a witness are apparently inconsistent, leaving it uncertain just what his recollection of the facts respecting which he testifies is, it is the province of the jury to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or different witnesses, or to draw the line between them and say which shall prevail.</p>