Holzheimer v. Lit Bros.

Citations

• 262 Pa. 150
• 105 A. 73
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 609

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—Truck—Defendant’s name on truck— Presumption — >Evidence — Affirmative defense — Oase for fury— New trial.</p> <p>1. In a negligence case the fact that an automobile truck which collided with a pedestrian bore the name of the defendant company, is sufficient to establish not only a prima facies that the defendant was the owner of the truck, but that it was then in charge of defendant’s servant or employee, and is sufficient to carry the case to the jury, even though there is direct testimony on the part of the defendant to rebut the presumption.</p> <p>2. In such case where defendant’s witnesses testified that the driver of the truck at the time of the collision was a stranger who took the car for his own pleasure while the regular driver was absent for a brief period and had left the car in charge of a delivery helper, who had nothing to do with the management or control thereof, such evidence was not of such conclusive and unimpeachable nature as would have justified binding instructions in defendant’s favor.</p> <p>Williams v. Ludwig, 252 Pa. 140, followed; Lonzer v. Railroad, 196 Pa. 613, not applicable.</p>