Skip to main content
· 7/1/1916

Seeherman v. Wilkes-Barre Co.

Citations

  • 255 Pa. 11
  • 99 A. 174
  • 1916 Pa. LEXIS 519

Syllabus

<p>Jurors — Competency—Ownership of hond of party to issue — Exclusion.</p> <p>1. The right to reject jurymen is not a right to select. No party can acquire a vested right to have a particular member of a jury panel sit upon the trial of his cause, until he has been accepted and sworn. It is enough that it appear that the cause has been tried by an impartial jury; it is no ground of exception that against his objection, the juror was rejected by the court upon insufficient grounds unless through rejecting persons the necessity of accepting others not qualified has been purposely created.</p> <p>2. No person should be permitted to serve on a jury who stands in any relation to a party to the cause that would carry with it prima 'facie evident marks of suspicion of favor.</p> <p>3. A stockholder in a corporation is incompetent to serve as a juror in a case in which the corporation has an interest; but the mere fact that a juror owns a bond of a defendant corporation does not make him incompetent.</p> <p>4. In an action against an electric company for damages for the death of plaintiff’s son, it was not reversible error to reject a juror on the ground that he was the owner of a bond issued by defendant company, where it appeared that there were other competent jurors in the panel who were selected.</p> <p>NegVigence — Electric companies — Defective transformer — Death —Bes ipsa loquitur — Evidence—Precautions after accident — Trials —Bemarks of counsel — Damages—Charge—Error in charge — Correction.</p> <p>5. Where in an action against an electric company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s son due to the alleged unsafe condition of an electric transformer, an instrument attached to a pole near plaintiff’s premises, the purpose of which was to reduce the dangerous current of electricity passing through the main wire to a safe current to be introduced into houses and all places for lighting purposes, the reduction being from a voltage of 2,300 to 110, it appea

Judges: Carman, Frazer, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.