Antonelli v. Tumolo
| Decision Date | 27 May 1957 |
| Parties | Ralph A. ANTONELLI v. George TUMOLO, Appellant in No. 186, and Anthony Archangelo (Helen Archangelo, Administratrix of William J. JENKINS v. Anthony ARCHANGELO (Helen Archangelo, Administratrix of and George Tumolo, Appellant in No. 187. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 24, 1957
Appeals, Nos. 180, 181, 186 and 187, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1953 No. 4611, and of Court of Common Pleas No. 3, Dec. T., 1953 No. 7733, in cases of Ralph A. Antonelli v. George Tumolo and Anthony Archangelo (Helen Archangelo, Administratrix of Estate of Anthony Archangelo, Deceased); William J. Jenkins v. Anthony Archangelo (Helen Archangelo, Administratrix of Estate of Anthony Archangelo, Deceased), and George Tumolo. Judgment for plaintiff, Antonelli, affirmed; judgment for plaintiff, Jenkins, as modified, affirmed.
Actions of trespass for personal injuries. Before REIMEL, J.
Verdicts for plaintiff Antonelli in the sum of $2500. and against both defendants, and for plaintiff Jenkins in the sum of $22,500, and against both defendants; defendants' motions for new trial refused and judgments entered on the verdicts. Defendants appealed.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence and we believe that a fair verdict in favor of the plaintiff Jenkins would be an award of $15,000. The judgment in favor of Antonelli in the sum of $2,500 is affirmed. The judgment in favor of Jenkins is reduced to $15,000, and, as so modified, is affirmed.
John J. McDevitt, 3rd, with him Peter P. Liebert, 3rd, for defendant, Tumolo.
I. R. Kremer, with him Max E. Cohen and Henry Temin, for defendant, Archangelo.
George T. Guarnieri, for plaintiff, Jenkins.
Before JONES, C.J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
These appeals arise from the refusal of the court below to disturb the verdicts of the jury in trespass actions consolidated for trial. Ralph A. Antonelli was a passenger in a car driven by Anthony Archangelo, and William J. Jenkins was a passenger in an automobile driven by George Tumolo at a time when the two vehicles collided. Antonelli brought an action against Tumolo in which Archangelo was brought in as additional defendant. Jenkins brought an action against Archangelo in which Tumolo was brought in as additional defendant. There was a third suit brought by Archangelo against Tumolo in which Tumolo filed a counterclaim for damages from Archangelo. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger Antonelli against both drivers in the amount of $2,500 and a verdict in favor of the passenger Jenkins against both drivers in the amount of $22,500. In the suit between the drivers the verdict was: "We find contributory negligence on the part of both parties.". All post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial were denied by the court below. No appeal to this Court was taken in the suit between the drivers. The appeals before us are by both defendants from the judgments entered against them in the respective actions brought by Antonelli and Jenkins. Neither appellant contends that he was entitled to judgment n.o.v., and the appeals relate solely to the grant of a new trial.
Both defendants urge that the verdict in favor of the passenger Jenkins in the amount of $22,500 was excessive. In addition, it is contended on behalf of the defendants Archangelo [1] that a new trial as to him should be granted in both cases since the verdicts of negligence against both drivers are inconsistent, and that the weight of the evidence required a finding that Tumolo alone and not Archangelo was negligent. Tumolo of course resists this contention, and urges that if a new trial is granted it should be as to both defendants and not as to Archangelo alone. [2]
The accident occurred on 49th Street in Philadelphia, a two-way street running generally north and south, upon which two sets of trolley car tracks were situated. The street is 38 feet wide, and, after subtracting the space taken by the automobiles which were parked on both sides of the street, it appears that there remained sufficient roadway for motor vehicles going in opposite directions to safely pass one another.
The testimony for Archangelo is to the effect that he was traveling south on 49th Street, straddling the west rail of the southbound trolley track, and following three cars which were preceding him; that he saw the Tumolo automobile about 50 to 75 feet away traveling north on his proper side of the medial line; and that suddenly, before Archangelo could do anything about it, the Tumolo automobile turned left across the medial or center line and struck his left front fender. The testimony on behalf of Tumolo had him traveling north on 49th Street straddling the east rail of the northbound trolley track; he saw two or three cars proceeding south on their side of the street; and when the Archangelo car, the last of the southbound cars, was about ten feet away from him, Archangelo seemed to cut out as if to see if he could pass the car in front of him, thus crossing the center line into Tumolo's lane and striking the latter's left front fender. The testimony of the investigating officers was to the effect that they could discern no fresh skid tracks but that the Tumolo car came to rest facing north with its left front fender about four feet over the center line. The Archangelo car came to rest about two feet north and away from the Tumolo car, facing southeast (toward the Tumolo car's lane), its right rear having come into contact with an automobile parked by the curb on the west (southbound) side of the street, and its left front about four feet from the center line in the southbound (Archangelo's) lane.
Archangelo argues that neither version of the accident places both drivers over the center line, that the jury had to believe one or the other caused the accident by crossing the center line, and that the position of the automobiles after the accident requires the belief that the Tumolo automobile was the one that invaded the Archangelo lane.
As to the positions of the automobiles after the accident, there is no clear indication of where the vehicles were when the collision actually took place. There were no skid marks. There was debris and dirt scattered throughout the area. The fact that both vehicles...
To continue reading
Request your trial