Richardson v. Flower

Citations

• 248 Pa. 35
• 93 A. 777
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 507

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—Master and servant — Defective tire —Notice to owner — Injury to chauffeur — Assumption of rish— Court and jury — New trial.</p> <p>1. In an action by a chauffeur to recover damages sustained while replacing a punctured tire on the wheel of his employer’s automobile by reason of an alleged defect in the iron retaining ring which blew out while the tire was being pumped by plaintiff, where the evidence as to whether the owner had notice of such defect and had promised to correct it was conflicting, the question of assumption of risk was for the jury, and where opposing counsel agreed that there was no question of assumption of risk in the case and the trial judge agreed to disregard such question in his charge, and after verdict for plaintiff, the court, in considering defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, treated such question as the controlling one in the case, a new trial was awarded on appeal.</p> <p>Practice — Supreme Court — Issue tried in court below — Agreement as to issue.</p> <p>2. A party will not be heard to question the correctness of the submission of a ease after the court has submitted it from the standpoint in which both parties to the issue manifestly tried it. The Supreme Court reviews only questions considered and determined in the court below, and will not convict a trial court of error in not having ruled the ease on a question which both parties concede was not in it.</p>