Bolton v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1907
• Docket Number: 2
• Citation: 67 A. 950,219 Pa. 83
• Parties: Bolton v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

67 A. 950

Bolton v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company, Appellant

219 Pa. 83

No. 2

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 25, 1907

Argued June 3, 1907

Appeal, No. 2, May T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Dauphin Co., January T., 1905, No. 507, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edwin G. Bolton et al. v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before KUNKEL, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict for Sadie Bolton for $3,000, and for Edwin G. Bolton for $500. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned among others were (1, 2) the instructions quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Wolfe &amp Bailey, for appellant.

C. H. Bergner, for appellees.

Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

It was conceded by the defendant at the trial that the conductor had negligently started the car while the plaintiff was getting off. As said by the judge in his charge "the real question in the case is what were the injuries, if any, which the plaintiff received." These were claimed to be bruises on the elbow, the back and the knee, only the last being at all serious or continuing, and their existence resting on the testimony of plaintiff herself, supported to some extent by that of one of the doctors. On the other side was rather a strong array of medical testimony that her knee was not injured at all and her leg had all its normal sensation and action.

The defendant presented a point for charge that "it is the duty of the jury, in considering the relative value attaching to the testimony of the witnesses in this case, to bear in mind that the plaintiffs, Mrs. Bolton and her husband, have a direct and pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case," to which the judge answered "That we affirm. Of course, gentlemen of the jury, the credibility of the witnesses is for you; you are to determine their credibility from the manner of their testifying, from the inherent probability of their statements, and from any matter that may suggest itself to you as throwing light upon the credibility of the witnesses not only of the plaintiff and her husband, but of all the witnesses, those on the part of the plaintiff and those on the part of the defendant."

And a further point, that "the unanimous testimony of the four medical witnesses, Drs. Stevens and...