Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SIMMS v. WHEELING CAB CO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA.


February 4, 1949.

SIMMS et al.
v.
WHEELING CAB CO.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCVICAR

McVICAR, District Judge.

This action is now before the Court on plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

 Plaintiffs seek, in this action, to recover damages alleged to have been received by them as a result of an automobile accident April 10, 1945 near Washington, Pennsylvania.

 There was a collision between the automobile owned by Josephine Simms and in which she and her husband were riding at the time, and a taxicab of the defendant, used for taxi purposes. The jury returned the following verdict: "A verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Josephine Simms, and award damages of $200.00 for damage to the car and expenses."

 The jury was instructed that if their verdict was in favor of the plaintiffs, that they were entitled to recover damages for whatever injuries were received by reason of the accident. In the case of Josephine Simms, they should consider two items, namely, pain, suffering and inconvenience and the other for damages to her car. The jury evidently allowed damages to Josephine Simms, the woman plaintiff, for the amount of expenses.

 It was agreed at the time of the argument that $200 was the amount of the expenses for repairs of Josephine Simms' automobile, the hotel bill of the plaintiffs and for x-ray pictures which were taken while in Washington. The evidence of the plaintiffs and defendant were in conflict as to whether Josephine Simms suffered any damages by reason of pain, suffering and inconvenience. A number of witnesses were called by each side.

 I am of the opinion that the question was one of fact for the jury and therefore, that plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, which was based upon inadequacy of the verdict, should be refused.

19490204

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.