Burchard v. Seber
Decision Date | 16 March 1965 |
Citation | 417 Pa. 431,207 A.2d 896 |
Parties | June A. BURCHARD, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Alton Burchard, deceased, v. Harold W. SEBER, Appellant, Duane Troyer and Michael Bailey. Donald BEUCHAT v. Harold W. SEBER, Appellant, Duane Troyer and Michael Bailey. Charles J. ROAE v. Duane TROYER and Michael Bailey, Original Defendants, and Harold W. Seber, Additional Defendant. Appeal of Harold W. SEBER. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Stuart A. Culbertson, Paul E. Allen, Meadville, for appellant.
F Joseph Thomas, Meadville, for June A. Burchard.
Humes & Kiebort, F. C. Kiebort, Jr., Fred C. Kiebort, Meadville for Troyer & Bailey.
Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN O'BRIEN, and ROBERTS, JJ.
Richard A. Burchard, Donald Beuchat and Charles J. Roae, on October 30, 1959, were passengers in an automobile owned and being operated by Harold W. Seber. While Seber was driving East on Route 27, between 7:30 and 8:00 A.M., he came into collision with a truck owned by Duane Troyer and operated by Michael Bailey. The truck had suffered engine trouble and was parked partially on the highway in Seber's lane of travel.
As a result of the collision, Burchard was killed and Beuchat and Roae were injured. Burchard's administratrix and Beuchat brought actions of trespass against Seber, Troyer and Bailey, and Roae brought an action of trespass against Troyer and Bailey, who joined Seber as an additional defendant. The cases were consolidated for trial and resulted in jury verdicts for Burchard's administratrix, under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts, and for Beuchat and Roae, against Troyer and Bailey only, Seber being exonerated of liability by the jury.
Troyer and Bailey moved for judgments n. o. v. and for new trials, and the plaintiffs moved for new trials as to Seber. Subsequently, Troyer's insurance carrier paid the verdicts, up to the limit of its coverage, leaving a portion of the verdicts unpaid. Troyer and Bailey were then in the position of pursuing their new trial motions in order to try to salvage contribution from Seber, and the plaintiffs were in the position of pursuing their new trial motions in order to collect that portion of their verdicts not accounted for by the payment made by Troyer's carrier. The court below held that the verdict exonerating Seber was contrary to the evidence and ordered new trials limited to the issue of the negligence of Seber; these appeals followed.
There is no significant dispute as to the facts of the case, they being well summarized in the opinion of the Court below, as follows:
From this fact situation, we must determine whether the court below properly granted a new trial limited to the issue of Seber's negligence. In so determining, we are bound by the oft-stated rule that the grant or refusal of a new trial will not be reversed on appeal, absent an abuse of discretion or error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Cinciripini v. Harmony Short Line, 416 Pa. 231, 205 A.2d 860 (1965); Weed v. Kerr, 416 Pa. 233, 205 A.2d 858 (1965), and cases cited therein.
The court below found that the negligence of Seber was clearly established by the evidence and that justice dictated a new trial on that issue. This holding is virtually compelled by the testimony of Seber himself. On direct examination by his counsel, he testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial