Hunter v. Consolidated Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Hunter v. Consolidated Traction Co., 193 Pa. 557 (Pa. 1899)
44 A. 578; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 1165
Brown, Fell, Green, McCollum, Mitchell

Hunter v. Consolidated Traction Co.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

It seems to us that the learned court below submitted the question of the defendant’s negligence to the jury with careful and correct instructions. The jury found that there was no negligence and therefore rendered their verdict in favor of the defendant. It was their special function to determine this question, and an examination of the testimony convinces us that the verdict was fully justified. We do not think that the *562charge is amenable to the criticisms contained in the assignments of error. We perceive no errors in the charge and the assignments of error are therefore dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Jerry Hunter, Guardian of Cursie Jackson v. Consolidated Traction Company
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published
Syllabus
Negligence—Street railiuays—Infant. In an action by a boy six or seven years old to recover damages for personal injuries caused by being run over by an electric car, a verdict and judgment for the defendant will be sustained where the weight of the evidence of even the plaintiff’s own witnesses tends to show that he ran in front of the car; that the car was so close when he started to run that the motorman could not stop it in time to prevent the accident.