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.

LEE v. PENN-HARRIS TAXI SERVICE COMPANY (10/10/63)

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


October 10, 1963

LEE
v.
PENN-HARRIS TAXI SERVICE COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Appeal, No. 41, May T., 1963, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, June T., 1960, No. 1105, in case of David E. Lee, a minor, by W. Edward Lee, his guardian, and W. Edward Lee and Doris E. Lee v. Penn-Harris Taxi Service Company, Inc. Judgments affirmed.

COUNSEL

Harry L. Bricker, Jr., with him Robert E. Knupp, for appellant.

John C. Dowling, with him Huette F. Dowling, George W. McKee, Jr., and Dowling and Dowling, for appellees.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.

[ 412 Pa. Page 287]

OPINION PER CURIAM

David E. Lee, a minor, was involved in an intersection accident with a vehicle owned by appellant and operated by its employee. A jury trial resulted in verdicts for the minor and his parents, in the sums of $12,000 and $1,338 respectively.

[ 412 Pa. Page 288]

Appellant's motions for new trial and judgment n.o.v. were refused and judgments were entered on the jury verdicts; this appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the testimony of appellees' witnesses convicts appellees of contributory negligence and that his motion for judgment n.o.v. should therefore have been granted. We have often stated that contributory negligence can be declared as a matter of law only in clear cases and where there is no room for fair and reasonable disagreement as to its existence. Weidemoyer v. Swartz, 407 Pa. 282, 180 A.2d 19 (1962); McKniff v. Wilson, 404 Pa. 647, 172 A.2d 801 (1961). An examination of the record in this case discloses that the question of appellees' contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

Appellant also urges that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, relative to the duty of appellant's driver at the intersection. We find no error in the charge, it having properly set forth the law on the subject. Cf. Eisert v. Jones, 408 Pa. 73, 182 A.2d 717 (1962).

Disposition

Judgments affirmed.

19631010

© 1998 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.