Holmes v. Union Traction Co.
Holmes v. Union Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This case was properly taken from the jury, and we must assume, in the absence of any reason given by the learned trial judge, that it was for the right one that the appellant’s carelessness and negligence stood in the way of her right to recover, and not for the wrong one that, by her alleged release, she had discharged the company from all liability to her. At any rate, the judgment is what it ought to be, and, as there was a good and controlling reason for directing the verdict for the defendant, it cannot be disturbed because the court may have relied upon the wrong one and overlooked the right one. The evidence of the defendant’s negligence was slight, but sufficient to go to the jury; the court could not have correctly held that the paper purporting to be the release of the plaintiff bound her, for it could have been fairly found as a fact that it was not her act for the purpose appearing on its face; and, but for her negligence in contributing to her injuries, which is so plain that we must so pronounce it, she might recover. As it is, she cannot. The assignment that the court erred in instructing the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Holmes v. Union Traction Company
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- negligence — Contributory negligence — Release— Charge— Trial— Practice, C. P. Where there is a good and controlling reason for directing a verdict for the defendant, it cannot be disturbed because the court may have relied upon the wrong reason, and overlooked the right one. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries where it is alleged by the defendant both that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and that she had executed a release of damages, a verdict for defendant under binding instructions of the court will not be disturbed, where the evidence is clear that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, although the court could not have correctly held that the paper purporting to be a release bound her. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, binding instructions for the defendant are proper, where it appears that plaintiff about eleven o’clock in the morning of a rainy day started to cross a street on which the defendant company operated two tracks, and having twice seen the car which she desired to take on the far track, the view of which was unobstructed, went ahead with her umbrella so held that she could make no further observation of it, and was struck by the car when she was about in the middle of the track.