Case Name: Musgrave v. Slutsky, Appellant, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1926-05-10
Citations: 286 Pa. 298
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 128
Parties: Musgrave v. Slutsky, Appellant, et al.
Judges: Before Moschziskbr, O. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 286
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Musgrave v. Slutsky, Appellant, et al.
Argued April 19, 1926.
Before Moschziskbr, O. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
S. S. Herman, for appellant.
J. Morris Yeakle, for appellee.
May 10, 1926:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Plaintiff recovered a verdict against defendant Slut-sky for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The court below overruled a motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict, from which action Slutsky has appealed. Although in the court below appellant alleged a number of reasons for granting a new trial, the only one urged before us is to the effect that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. A reading of the testimony shows that occupants of each of the two cars involved in the collision gave distinct and conflicting accounts, one showing, the other negativing, negligence on the part of appellant; the evidence was carefully summed up by the trial judge, and submitted to the jury, who believed plaintiff's story. The question was for the jury, and the verdict, which is amply supported by the evidence, does not indicate any abuse of power by that body; hence we cannot say the refusal of a new trial was not justified.
The judgment is affirmed.