TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Elfriede Trafford and Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., and v. Paul Trafford

Elfriede TRAFFORD and Paul Trafford, Appellants, v. YELLOW CAB CO., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Paul TRAFFORD, Third-Party Defendant

Elfriede Trafford & Paul Trafford v. Yellow Cab Co., & v. Paul Trafford, 293 F.2d 43 (3d Cir. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 29, 1961
Docket
No. 13514_1
Judges
Goodrich, McLaughlin, Kalodner
Citations
293 F.2d 431961 U.S. App. LEXIS 4040

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a personal injury case arising out of an automobile collision.

This collision occurred November 4, 1956, at the intersection of Thirty-Fourth Street and Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia. The case was tried throughout, from the plaintiff’s opening statement to a submitted and given point for charge on the theory that Thirty-Fourth Street at this point was a through highway. This appears in the very first paragraph of the opening statement of counsel for the plaintiff. It further appears in the plaintiff’s point for charge number 8 which the trial judge gave. It reads: “Under the facts of this case, the law pertaining to through highways shall apply. A through highway is one whose entrances, from intersecting highways, have one or more stop signs.” This point was never withdrawn nor did counsel request an instruction that 20 miles per hour was the maximum speed limit. We are now invited to work through a maze of legislation by the Pennsylvania Legislature, the City Council of Philadelphia, the 1950 Charter and the rules *44 established by the Department of Public Safety. As presented, the maze gives one the impression that it would take a Theseus with Ariadne’s web to complete iche journey. We think the Court is not ^required in the present posture of the case to try to follow this maze.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 219652026peak 1965 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list