Hobel v. Mahoning & Shenango Railway & Light Co.

Citations

• 233 Pa. 450
• 82 A. 754
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 849

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Judgment non obstante veredicto — Conflict of evidence —Case for jury — Act of April 22,1905, P. L. 286.</p> <p>1. The Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286, which gives the court authority to enter judgment non obstante veredicto when a request for binding instructions has been declined at the trial, makes no radical innovation on the settled line of distinction between the power of the court and of the jury. Judgment cannot be entered against the verdict where there is a conflict of evidence on material facts or when for any reason there could not have been a binding instruction for the defendant.</p> <p>Negligence — Street railways — “Stop, look and listen” — Case for jury.</p> <p>2. In an action for personal injuries against a street railway company judgment non obstante veredicto cannot be entered where there is evidence that as the plaintiff, driving a team, approached the defendant’s electric road on a city street he stopped at the house line and looked and listened and continued to look and listen as he advanced; that when his horses were in the act of stepping on the tracks he first saw a car 150 feet from him running at a very rapid rate and of the approach of which no notice had been given by bell or gong; and that no effort was made by the motorman to stop the car or to reduce its speed until it was within ten feet of him.</p>