Blake v. Marinelli

Decision Date30 June 1947
Docket Number3041
PartiesBlake et vir v. Marinelli, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued May 27, 1947

Appeals, Nos. 102 and 110, March T., 1947, from judgment of C.P., Erie Co., Sept., T., 1946, No. 307, in case of Abbie V Blake et vir v. Michael Marinelli, trading as Lake Shore Distributing Company. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before LAUB, J.

Verdict for defendant. Plaintiffs' motion for new trial granted before EVANS, P.J., and LAUB, J., opinion per curiam. Defendant appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Douglass D. Storey, with him Frank B. Quinn, English, Quinn, Leemhuis & Plate and Storey & Bailey, for appellant.

A. Grant Walker, with him Henry A. MacDonald and Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, for appellees.

Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and STEARNE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this case the appealed from "order" granting a new trial is affirmed on the following excerpts from the opinion of the court below.

"On May 18, 1945, the wife plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured by being struck by defendant's truck on State Street in the City of Erie. State Street is an extremely busy two-way traffic artery and the accident happened between intersections.

"The testimony disclosed that the wife plaintiff left the premises of the Erie Dry Goods Company, known as the Boston Store, sometime after 2:00 p.m. and walked eastwardly to the west curb of State Street which is a north-south street. Immediately before the Boston Store is a well-defined 'No Parking' zone which is marked by white lines running out into the cartway and by vertical 'No Parking' signs which are stationed at the north and the south limits of the zone at the curb line. The wife plaintiff walked eastwardly to the north 'No Parking' sign and prepared to cross State Street between the intersections of Seventh and Eighth Streets, Seventh Street being an east-west street to the north of her, and Eighth Street being an east-west street to the south.

"As she prepared to cross the street, defendant's truck passed her, going in a southwardly direction on the west side of State Street. The wife plaintiff followed the progress of the truck out of the corner of her eye and then, seeing no indication that the truck was about to stop or change its motion, stepped into the cartway, concentrating her attention to the north from which the natural flow of traffic would be expected. She had proceeded only four or five steps when she was struck by defendant's truck which was then backing up. As a result of being struck, the wife plaintiff suffered a fracture in her left hip just below the head of the femur. She is now suffering from lost motion in the left leg and is unable to bear her whole weight on it. The leg itself has been shortened about one inch as a result of her injuries.

"The jury returned a verdict in which... was molded into a finding for the defendant...

"Upon the trial of the case, Arthur Scholton, a witness for the plaintiff, testified upon cross examination that he had seen the defendant's truck pull up between the 'No Parking' signs in front of the Boston Store and then back up at the rate of about one mile an hour. He further testified that while the truck was in the process of backing up he saw a woman (whom he did not identify as the wife plaintiff but the inference was plain that it was she) step off the curb. The testimony disclosed that the 'No Parking' space was only twenty-one feet wide, and the effect of the testimony of this witness was to cement the inference raised by the testimony of the wife plaintiff that she must have heedlessly stepped off the curb without looking, and walked into the path of the backing truck. "After the trial the witness Scholton signed an affidavit in which he admitted having perjured himself. The plaintiffs promptly, and within term...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Daniel v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • April 14, 2011
    ...cases involving recanted testimony. Township of Perkiomen v. Mest, 513 Pa. 598, 603, 522 A.2d 516, 519 (1987); Blake v. Marinelli, 357 Pa. 314, 317, 53 A.2d 550, 552 (1947). In this case, the trial court found that Dr. Layfield had recanted his opinion regarding the cause of Daniel's cancer......
  • Vogel v. Stupi
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1947
  • Perkiomen Tp. v. Mest
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1987
    ...within the sound discretion and judgment of the trial court and serves as a full justification for reopening the case. Blake v. Marinelli, 357 Pa. 314, 53 A.2d 550 (1947); Candelore v. Glauser, 291 Pa. 582, 140 A. 525 (1928). See, Kvaternik v. Yochim, 360 Pa. 387, 61 A.2d 815 (1948); see al......
  • Cook, Matter of
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • July 1, 1987
    ...it is within the court's discretion to grant a new trial. See Kvaternik v. Yochim, 360 Pa. 387, 61 A.2d 815 (1948); Blake v. Marinelli, 357 Pa. 314, 53 A.2d 550 (1947); McCabe v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 311 Pa. 229, 166 A. 843 (1933); Candelore v. Glauser, 291 Pa. 582, 140 A. 525 (1928) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT