Long v. Township of Milford

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania October 6, 1890

Long v. Township of Milford, 137 Pa. 122 (Pa. 1890)

20 A. 425; 1890 Pa. LEXIS 960

Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The first four assignments are not in accordance with the rules of court, and will not be considered. We fail to discover error in the portion of the charge embraced in the fifth assignment. The language of the court was justified by the evidence, and was free from error. The sixth assignment alleges that the court erred in charging the jury that “if they were both *128guilty of negligence, the plaintiff could not recover. The law does not stop to measure the degree of negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” Not only is this free from error, but it is strictly accurate. The rule is, that if the plaintiff’s negligence contributed in any degree, however slight, to the injury, he cannot recover. The matter referred to in the seventh assignment is not the subject of error, and, if it were, no harm is done, as the supplemental charge is given, and error assigned to it. The words objected to in the supplemental charge about reading a newspaper, were used merely by way of illustration, and did not purport to be an extract from the evidence. The illustration was proper, and could have done the plaintiff no injury.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: J. F. G. LONG v. TOWNSHIP OF MILFORD
Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Specifications, alleging- error in the answers to points for instruction, ■which do not quote the points and answers, or, error in the admission or rejection of testimony, which do not give the testimony admitted or rejected under the offers made, are not in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court XXIII., XXIV. 2. In an action against a township for negligence, it is not error to charge, upon submissible * evidence, that if the jury find that the plaintiff, driving a blind horse, negligently suffered his carriage to be drawn against a tree at the side of the roadway, causing the horse to plunge over the embankment, he cannot recover. 3. And it is not error, in such case, to charge, that “if they were both guilty of negligence, the plaintiff could not recover. The law does not stop to measure the degree of negligence on the part of the plaintiff.” Not only is the instruction free from error, but it is strictly accurate, á. Where the trial judge, in instructing the jury, used facts assumed but not purporting to have been shown ip the testimony, merely by way of illustration as to legal negligence, such use was not error simply because the facts assumed conformed to a theory of the ease urged by the opposing party.