Hamill v. Borough

Citations

• 49 Pa. Super. 371
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 333

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Road—Absence of guard rail — Borough.</p> <p>1. In an action by a woman forty-seven years old. against a borough to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while she was driving a buggy on a dark night on a road in the borough, it appeared that at the point of the accident the road was from three to four feet above the adjoining land on one side, from which it was separated by a stone wall, the top of which was on a level with the roadway, and not protected by a guard rail or any barrier. The plaintiff had the reins loosely in her hands, which were lying on her lap. The right wheel scraped against some stones, and the plaintiff called: “Whoa” to the horse, which stopped and began to back. The horse was not frightened and plaintiff made no effort to control him when he began to back, permitting the reins to remain just as they were. He continued to back with the result that the buggy went over the wall, and plaintiff was injured. Held, that the question of plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>2. It is only where the facts are such that all reasonable minds must draw the same conclusions from them, that the question of contributory negligence is to be disposed of by the court as a matter of law. It is not the province of the court to weigh the evidence or decide between conflicting statements of witnesses, or to decide what inferences should be drawn from uncontradicted evidence, if different minds could fairly come to different conclusions from it.</p>