Parker v. Matheson Motor Car Co.

Citations

• 241 Pa. 461
• 88 A. 653
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 807

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles •— Evidence — Conflicting evidence — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. Where by making due allowances for the position of a witness and the form of the questions and answers on cross-examination, it is possible to harmonize statements apparently conflicting w.ith his testimony in chief and to draw justifiable inferences from the testimony as a whole, it is for the jury te say how they will find.</p> <p>2. In an action of trespass to recover damages for personal injuries, resulting from tbe negligent driving of an automobile by defendant’s employee the defense was that on the day of the accident, which was Sunday, the driver of the car was not acting within the scope of his employment, but was taking a pleasure trip, in no way connected with defendant’s service; the driver, testifying for plaintiff, said that he was “testing” the car, which was new, that testing cars was his only duty, and that at times he worked on Sunday; on cross-examination, he said that he had asked for the car, that he was taking a pleasure trip, and had visited his home town; on re-examination he said that he was “running in” the car at the same time, by which was meant loosening it up, making necessary adjustments, etc., and that “it was understood” when defendant’s foreman allowed him to take the car, that it was to be tested. Held, that the witness had not denied, retracted, or explained away his testimony given in chief, in such a way, or to such an extent, as .would have justified the court in giving binding instructions .for 'the defendant.</p>