Twinn v. Noble

Citations

• 270 Pa. 500
• 113 A. 686
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 425

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Damages—Pleading — Personal examination—Motion for new trial—Discretion of court — Evidence — Burden of proof.</p> <p>1. Where a statement in a negligence case avers injuries to plaintiff’s arms, legs, head and body, and that he suffered a severe shock to his nervous system, it is competent for plaintiff to submit expert evidence tending to show a broken nose and cerebrospinal meningitis as results of the accident.</p> <p>2. The burden is on plaintiff, in such case, to show that he was afflicted with cerebro-spinal meningitis, and that,it resulted from the accident.</p> <p>3. The refusal of the trial court to order plaintiff to submit to a further examination, after verdict, for use on defendant’s rule for a new trial, is a matter within its discretion and affords no ground for setting aside a judgment in plaintiff’s favor.</p> <p>Negligence—Automobiles—Grossings—Pedestrians — Vehicles— Proximate cause—Charge—Ridiculing party.</p> <p>4. The rights of pedestrians and- vehicles at public crossings are equal; but where a pedestrian without negligence on his part has committed himself to the crossing, he has the superior right of way as against a vehicle thereafter approaching.</p> <p>5. While a chauffeur at a public crossing must have his car under such control as to be able to stop on the shortest possible notice, he is not required to drive so as to 'stop instantly.</p> <p>6. If the jury finds that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of another car which caused plaintiff to jump suddenly in defendant’s path, the latter will not be liable.</p> <p>7. A judgment on a verdict for plaintiff will be reversed where the inevitable effect of comment by the trial judge on defendant’s testimony was to expose defendant to ridicule, and discredit his testimony.</p>