McIlhenny v. Baker

Citations

• 63 Pa. Super. 385
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 173

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—License—Evidence.</p> <p>The fact that an automobile was operated by a boy who had no license, will not prevent the owner of the car from recovering damages for injuries to it sustained by the negligent operation of another automobile on a .public highway.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to an automobile alleged to have been caused by the automobile of the defendant running into that of the plaintiff from behind, a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained where the evidence for the plaintiff, although contradicted, tended to show that there was nothing to obstruct the vision of the defendant’s chauffeur prior to the accident, that he ran his car twenty or twenty-five miles an hour, that plaintiff’s car when struck was only two or three feet from the right side of a steep embankment, that the highway at the point was of ample width to enable the defendant’s car to pass the plaintiff’s car safely if the slightest care had been used, and that there was no obstruction to prevent this- from being done.</p> <p>Where the testimony offered by the plaintiff in a negligence case makes out a prima facie case by showing the existence of facts from which an inference of negligence arises, the case is necessarily for the jury, notwithstanding that the great preponderance of the testimony is with the defendant.</p> <p>Evidence — Declarations—Bes gestes — Automobiles—Negligence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to an automobile resulting from a collision with another automobile, a declaration of the plaintiff’s chauffeur' made immediately after the accident to the effect that “it could not be helped,” is properly stricken out where it appears that the words were spoken immediately after the defendant’s chauffeur had told the plaintiff’s chauffeur that the absence of a bolt was the cause of the accident.</p>