Kelton v. Fifer

Citations

• 26 Pa. Super. 603
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 364

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Presumption—Evidence.</p> <p>A master is responsible for an injury resulting from the negligence of his servant while driving the master’s vehicle, provided the servant is at the time engaged in his master’s business. If the master is being driven by the servant, it may be inferred without other proof that the latter is engaged in the master’s business, and is subject to his control.</p> <p>A bailee, or person in possession or control of a conveyance, by whatever name he may be called, is as responsible for the negligence of his driver as if he were the owner, and proof of his possession and control is equally effective as prima facie evidence that the person driving was doing so for him.</p> <p>Evidence — Oral testimony — Credibility of witnesses — Question for jury.</p> <p>Where there is any evidence which alone justifies an inference of a disputed fact, it must go to the jury; and this is generally true whether the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised upon motion for a non-suit, or at the conclusion of the trial in which the defendant has introduced countervailing evidence' of a positive character. There may be exceptional cases where the evidence introduced by the defendant is of such conclusive and unimpeachable nature as to justify binding instructions in his favor, even though the plaintiff’s evidence standing alone would justify the inferences necessary to support his claim. But this situation can scarcely ever arise where the defense rests on oral testimony, and the credibility of the'witnesses is involved.</p>