243 Pa. 110 | Pa. | 1914
Opinion by
In refusing the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto the learned judge who presided at the trial in the court below made the following summary of the material facts as they appeared from the testimony: "The uncontroverted evidence in this case showed that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company, and, while so employed, fell into an unguarded hole in the floor of the defendant company’s plant. It appeared
We find nothing in the assignments constituting reversible error. The first is without substantial merit, and the second, third and fourth relate to the refusal of the trial judge to give binding instructions in favor of
Judgment affirmed.