John C. Stenella & Shirley Stenella, His Wife v. S. S. Kresge Co., 248 F.2d 933 (3rd Cir. 1957). · Go Syfert
Search
John C. Stenella & Shirley Stenella, His Wife v. S. S. Kresge Co., 248 F.2d 933 (3rd Cir. 1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: David D. Morran v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation (ca3, 1963-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David D. Morran v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1963 · confidence medium
In denying a new trial, the court below expressed the belief that our decisions in Munzenmayer v. Lit Bros., Inc., 3 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 946 , and Stenella v. S. S. Kresge Co., 3 Cir., 1957, 248 F.2d 933 , suggest that contributory negligence is a jury question in a case like this.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John C. STENELLA and Shirley Stenella, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
S. S. KRESGE COMPANY
12227.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Nov 7, 1957.
248 F.2d 933
Paul M. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., (Herman Moskowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., Stark & Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant., Henry T. Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., (Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Goodrich, Kalodner, Per Curiam, Staley.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is a suit for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the wife-plaintiff, Mrs. Shirley Stenella, when she claimed to have fallen and hurt herself by reason of a foreign substance on the floor of one of defendant’s stores in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff appeals alleging error in the trial of the case. We do not find any error. Complaint is made that the judge should not have charged the jury concerning contributory negligence. But contributory negligence was alleged in defendant’s answer. There was testimony in the plaintiff’s case as to the manner in which the injury took place. It was sufficient to raise a question whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. We find no error in submitting the question to the jury. Cf. Dunn v. Calpin, Pa.C.P. 1941, 51 Dauph.Co. 192, 194.

The other alleged errors have been considered but do not need to be set forth. The case was fairly tried and the jury’s verdict and the judgment thereon must stand.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.