Stokes v. Township of Ralpho
Stokes v. Township of Ralpho
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff’s right to recover in this case depended on disputed questions of fact which it was clearly the duty of the court to submit to the jury for their determination. That was done in a full and adequate charge which, considered as a whole, appears to be free from substantial error. In reaching the conclusion embodied in their verdict, the jury must have found all the material questions in plaintiff’s favor; and we find nothing
The first five specifications are to portions of the general charge recited therein respectively; and the two remaining specifications are to the court’s answers to defendant’s fourth and fifth points. We find nothing in any of these specifications of error that requires discussion. Neither of them is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Joseph Stokes v. Township of Ralpho
- Cited By
- 15 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Townships—Unguarded road — Apparent danger. One is not precluded from recovering for an injury received from a defect in a road, though knowing it was defective, unless the danger was so apparent that in the use of ordinary care he ought not to have undertaken the passage. Tn an action against a township to recover damages for personal injuries, the case is for the jury where the evidence tends to show that plaintiff, while driving a gentle horse at night with a buggy, fell over a precipitous bank at the side of the road; that the bank was unguarded, and had been so ever since the road was made, many years before.