236 Pa. 365 | Pa. | 1912
Opinion by
The negligence charged in this case is that the car was suddenly started before the injured party, an intending passenger, had time to safely board it, which she was attempting to do when the injuries complained of were sustained. This, it is alleged, resulted in throwing the intending passenger to the street and caused the injuries for which damages are claimed. On this branch of the case the defense was that the plaintiff attempted to board a moving car, and if so, there could be no recovery. The evidence on this controlling question is, to some extent, contradictory, but it was clearly for the jury, and it would have been error not to submit it. Two of the assignments of error relate to the refusal of the court to admit in evidence the record of a former suit brought by the same parties against the same company for injuries of like character alleged to have been sustained many years before the happening of the accident in the present case. The action in the former suit
We think no useful purpose will be served by discuss- • ing each of the seventeen assignments of error. All of them have been carefully examined, without convincing us that any reversible error was committed by the trial judge. The case on every disputed question was for the jury. It was carefully and intelligently tried. Both sides were represented by able and capable counsel. The trial judge was impartial and fair. The case was clearly presented to the jury and the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict. We can see no reason to disturb it. The opinion of the trial judge in refusing the motion for a new trial covers every feature of the case and is a vindication of the disposition made of it. The assignments of error are all overruled because in our opinion they do not warrant a reversal.
Judgment affirmed.