Case Name: Palumbo v. Campo, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 85 Pa. Super. 440
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 219
Parties: Palumbo v. Campo, Appellant.
Judges: Before Orlad y, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 440–442

Head Matter:
Palumbo v. Campo, Appellant.
Argued November 13,1924.
Before Orlad y, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Raymond A. White, Jr., and with him Maurice W. Sloan, for appellant.
The plaintiff as a guest of the driver was equally responsible with him for the accident: Renn v. Tone, 273 Pa. 10; Martin v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 265 Pa. 282; Hardie v. Barret, 257 Pa. 42.
I. G. Gordon Forster, for appellee.
The plaintiff and the defendant having embarked on a common enterprise for the benefit or pleasure of both parties, the defendant was required to exercise ordinary diligence: Cody v. Venzie, 263 Pa. 541; Goodman v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 167 Pa. 332; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Kerr, 62 Pa. 353; Penna. R. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Hoag v. R. R. Co., 85 Pa. 293.
February 27, 1925:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Every phase of this case was fully considered in the court below, and all debatable questions were submitted to the jury in a charge by the learned judge that is free from error. It was clearly a case for the jury, and there could be no doubt as to the law appertaining to the facts and the duty of the jury in disposing of them.
The judgment is affirmed.