McLaughlin v. Philadelphia Traction Co.
McLaughlin v. Philadelphia Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
This case depended on questions of fact which were clearly for the exclusive determination of the jury; and they were accordingly submitted to them by the learned trial judge with instructions that appear to be fully adequate and free from substantial error. The verdict in plaintiff’s- favor necessarily implies a finding of the controlling facts on which his right to recover depended, viz: that defendant company’s negligence in
There appears to be no error in the ruling complained of in the first specification. The objection to the question propounded to the witness, then on the stand, was rightly sustained. Nor do we think there is any error in either of the excerpts, from the learned judge’s charge, quoted in the remaining specifications. We find nothing in either of them that requires special notice. The case was carefully and correctly tried and the judgment entered on the verdict should not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- William McLaughlin v. Philadelphia Traction Company, and the City of Philadelphia
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Street railways — Rut in road at side of track. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, where it appears that the accident was caused by a deep rut close to the outer side of a rail, and it also appears that the company was bound to keep the street in repair, it is not error for the court to refuse to admit evidence that the street in question, which was merely a dirt road, was in the same condition as any other dirt road. Negligence — Street railways — Rut in street — Contributory negligence. Plaintiff was driving a large barrel wagon on the track of defendants’ street railway. The road was paved between the tracks, and there was a dirt road outside of the tracks. Close to the outside of one of the rails was a rut four or five feet in length, one foot in width and one foot in depth. The evidence showed that this rut had been there about two months. Plaintiff had driven over the road before. Under the law and ordinances of the city the railway company was bound to keep the road in repair. On the day of the accident plaintiff’s wagon left the rails, and the wheels on one side sank into the rut, and plaintiff was thrown and injured. Held, that plaintiff’s contributory negligence and defendants’ negligence were questions for the jury, and having been submitted with proper instructions, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.