Opinion
October 6, 1937.
November 12, 1937.
Appeals — Review — Judgment n. o. v. — Evidence — Conflicts — Inferences.
1. Where judgment n. o. v. is requested by defendant, the testimony must be viewed in a light most advantageous to plaintiff and he must be given the benefit of every inference reasonably deduced from the evidence with its conflicts resolved in his favor. [587]
Negligence — Automobiles — Contributory negligence — Street intersection — Approaching trolley car.
2. Where the evidence showed that plaintiff started his automobile across a thirty-six foot cartway when defendant's street car was at rest two hundred feet away; that he reached a space between the two tracks when the car was one hundred twenty-five feet away; and that plaintiff's car was struck in the rear just as he was leaving the path of the street car, it could not be held that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. [587]
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 204, March T., 1937, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1936, No. 1051, in case of Joseph Carter, Jr., a minor by his father and next friend Joseph Carter, Sr., and Joseph Carter, Sr., and Marie Carter, his wife, in their own right, v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before MOORE, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in sum of $2,675. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of judgment n. o. v.
D. H. McConnell, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant.
A. M. Oliver, of Dipple Oliver, for appellee.
Argued October 6, 1937.
Under our rule where judgment n. o. v. is requested, the testimony must be viewed in a light most advantageous to plaintiff and he must be given the benefit of every inference reasonably deduced from the evidence with its conflicts resolved in his favor. The evidence shows that appellee started his automobile across a thirty-six foot cartway when appellant's street car was at rest two hundred feet away. He reached a space between the two tracks when the car was one hundred twenty-five feet away. His car was struck in the rear just as he was leaving the path of the street car. We could not hold appellee guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; the statement of facts clearly show this case was for the jury.
Judgment affirmed.