Walters v. American Bridge Co.

Citations

• 234 Pa. 7
• 82 A. 1103
• 1912 Pa. LEXIS 603

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Independent contractor — County bridge — Judgment n. o. v. —Public works.</p> <p>1. In an action against a bridge company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while crossing a county bridge which the defendant had contracted to repair, a judgment for defendant n. o. v. will be affirmed where the written proof at the trial shows that the work at the point at which the plaintiff was injured was under a contract which the defendant had sublet, and the uncontradicted parol proof showed that the independent contractor was doing the work at the time of the accident, and that the defendant had no part in it. In such a case it is immaterial that there was an agreement between the county and the defendant that the contract was not to be sublet, and it is also immaterial that the contract was one for public works.</p> <p>2. In a negligence case where the oral testimony on the part of the defendant as to an independent contract under which the work was done is not in itself improbable, is not at variance with any proof or admitted facts or with ordinary experience, and comes from witnesses whose candor there is no ground for doubting, a jury ought not to be permitted to indulge in a capricious disbelief of their testimony and binding instructions for the defendant are proper: Lonzer v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 196 Pa. 610, followed.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Judgment for defendant n. o. v. — Rule for new trial.</p> <p>3. Where there is a rule for a new trial pending at the timé the trial court grants a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, the rule for a new trial must be discharged, inasmuch as no ease is ripe for judgment with a rule for a new trial undisposed of. If such action is not taken by the trial court, the appellate court will remit the record with directions to dispose of the rule.</p>