Case Name: Yoder v. Bosworth, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1916-07-18
Citations: 63 Pa. Super. 480
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 322
Parties: Yoder v. Bosworth, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 480–482

Head Matter:
Yoder v. Bosworth, Appellant.
Negligence — Automobiles—Case for jury.
In an action to recover damages for injuries to an automobile resulting from a collision between plaintiff’s and defendant’s cars, tbe case is for tbe jury where the plaintiff and his chauffeur substantially testify that tbe defendant’s car was not under proper control and that it was on tbe wrong side of the road, although such testimony is strongly contradicted by defendant and two witnesses.
Argued Dec. 14,1915.
Appeal, No. 322, Oct. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1913, No. 609, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles M. Yoder v. Florence Box Bosworth.
Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for injuries to an automobile.
Patterson, J., in his charge summed up the testimony as follows:
The plaintiff claims that he and his gardener and wife were riding along Washington Lane at about ten or ten-thirty p. m. on the 30th day of April, 1913; that the plaintiff’s automobile was being operated by William Thurnall, a chauffeur in the employ of the plaintiff; that the automobile of the plaintiff was going up hill at a moderate rate of speed, and was bearing towards the right hand side of the road; that the defendant, Mrs. Bosworth, was operating her car in the opposite direction to which the plaintiff’s car was going; and that the defendant’s car was being operated in a careless fashion, and traveling down hill at a fast rate of speed, and was on the same side of the road that the plaintiff’s car was traveling, which was the left hand side of the road, so far as the defendant was concerned. The plaintiff and his chauffeur have substantially testified to these facts, and also that in consequence of this carelessness, in not having the car under control, there was a collision between the two automobiles which injured the plaintiff’s car and put it out of use for two weeks while it was being repaired.
The defendant and two of her witnesses have testified, in substance, that they and the man named McCrea, and the mother of the defendant were coming towards the city along Washington Lane, and that the defendant was operating her automobile in a careful manner and at a moderate rate of speed, and on the right hand side of the road, and that the plaintiff’s car was coming towards them at a fast rate of spefed along the middle of the road, and that as a result of the plaintiff’s car not keeping to its right side of the road, and not being operated in a careful manner, and not going at a slow rate of speed, there was a collision, the contention of the defendant being that it was the fault of the plaintiff op his servant.
The court submitted the case to the jury,
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $160.25. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, amongst others, was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
Frank A. Chalmers and Simpson, Brown & Williams, for appellant.
Henry J. Scott, for appellee.
July 18, 1916:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The disputed questions of fact in this case were fairly submitted to the jury in an adequate charge.
There is no such reversible error in the record as would warrant a retrial of the case, and the judgment is affirmed.