TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rosenthal v. Radetsky

Rosenthal, Appellant, v. Radetsky Et Al.

Rosenthal v. Radetsky, 171 A. 567 (Pa. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 2, 1934
Docket
Nos. , 285
Judges
Frazer, Simpson, Kepi-Iart, Schaefer, Maxey, Drew, Linn
Citations
171 A. 567314 Pa. 2551934 Pa. LEXIS 485

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam, Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident while riding as a guest in a car owned and operated by defendant. In an action of trespass to recover damages she secured a verdict against him in the sum of $8,800. Defendant held a policy of liability insurance issued by the American Casualty Company, but five months after the accident and before the trial, the insurance company disclaimed liability under the policy on the ground of noncooperation and refused to take part in the defense of the suit. An attachment sur judgment was issued and the casualty company named as garnishee. In the answers filed to the interrogatories, garnishee denied liability for the reason defendant had not rendered the reasonable and necessary cooperation provided for in the policy. This issue was tried before a jury which rendered a verdict for garnishee. A new trial was awarded and the jury again found for garnishee. Plaintiff appeals from judgment entered on the verdict.

It is apparent that the sole issue involved here is a question of fact which has been twice submitted to a jury and each time found in appellee’s favor. Not only was there adequate testimony to support the jury’s verdict, but, as stated by the learned judge of the court below, “It is difficult to review the evidence in this case without coming to the same conclusion as that reached by the jury.” Appellant’s contentions were submitted to the jury in a comprehensive and impartial charge which is free from reversible error, and we are concluded by the decision rendered. See Graham v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 308 Pa. 534 .

All assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1934: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bruggeman v. Maryland Casualty Co.73 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1934)

Most recent

  1. Bruggeman v. Maryland Casualty Co.73 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1934)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Graham v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 162 A. 902 (Pa. 1932) 21

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