Case ID: pa-super_100/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Linn, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hecht v. Mileston and Phila. R. T. Co., Appellant.
    Argued October 9, 1930.
    
      Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrige and Whitmore, JJ.
    
      Samuel, H. Goplin, for appellant.
    
      Abraham S. Einhorn, for appellee.
    January 30, 1931:
   Opinion by

Linn, J.,

The verdict determines that the negligence of appellant’s motorman contributed to the damage to plaintiff’s house. The two questions involved, stated by appellant for review, may be answered with little discussion or statement of the case. They are:

“1. Where the plaintiff’s only witness to an accident gives conflicting versions of the happening of the accident concerning the negligence of the defendant, is it not error to refuse judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto?

“2. Where the plaintiff claims a sum certain in his statement of claim, and his witness gives conflicting testimony naming various sums as to the amount of the damage, is it not error to enter judgment for the amount claimed?”

1. We find no serious or unusual inconsistency in Jackson’s testimony; the jury was not confined to his evidence, but was entitled to, and probably did, consider all tbat was offered by both sides; the familiar rule tbat all tbe evidence and proper inferences from it favorable to plaintiff must be taken as true, and all unfavorable to Mm rejected (Hunter v. Pope, 289 Pa. 560) is applicable and conclusive against appellant.

2. Tbe judgment was entered on tbe verdict; tbat it happened to be “tbe amount claimed” is no reason for disturbing it, if there is supporting testimony. Tbe record shows such testimony.

Plaintiff testified that be paid $550 (tbe amount claimed) to have the damage repaired; and, though objection to tbe question was made after it was answered, it would have been error to sustain the objection, if made in time. Moreover, tbe man who did tbe work testified tbat be was paid tbat sum by plaintiff ; there was no evidence tbat the amount paid was unreasonable; it was tbe duty of tbe jury to find the amount allowable; no complaint is made of tbe manner in which it was submitted to tbe jury.

Tbe opinion of Glass, J., filed pursuant to rule 58, completely answers all of appellant’s contentions.

Judgment affirmed.