Krobot v. Ganzak

• Decision Date: 14 December 1960
• Parties: Corrine KROBOT, Appellee v. Eugene GANZAK, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

166 A.2d 311

194 Pa.Super. 49

Corrine KROBOT, Appellee v. Eugene GANZAK, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

December 14, 1960.

Ruth F. Cooper, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

John A. Briley, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and GUNTHER, WRIGHT ERVIN, WOODSIDE, WATKINS and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

WRIGHT, Judge.

We are here concerned with an action in trespass to recover property damages arising out of a motor vehicle collision. From an adverse judgment of a Justice of the Peace, defendant appealed to the County Court of Allegheny County. The case was tried without a jury. After hearing the evidence, the trial judge entered judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant's exceptions were subsequently dismissed by the court en banc. This appeal followed.

The record discloses that, on July 7, 1959, at approximately 11:00 A.M Corrine Krobot was parking her father's car ^[1] on the north side of Montgomery Avenue in the City of Pittsburgh. According to her testimony, she had completed the act of parking, had stopped the car between the designated white lines in a position perpendicular to the curb, and was 'ready to turn off the motor'. Appellant was driving his car into Montgomery Avenue from Union Avenue, in the process of which he was required to make a left turn to the west. After he had proceeded about three car lengths, the right front fender of his car came into contact with the right rear fender of the Krobot car. It was appellant's theory of the case that, as he was passing by, the Krobot car backed out of the parking space.

A finding by a trial judge sitting without a jury has the force and effect of a jury's verdict, and the party favored by the finding is entitled to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him, and to have all conflicts in testimony resolved in his favor. McCune v. Ellenberger, 182 Pa.Super. 442, 127 A.2d 791. The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is for the trial judge, sitting without a jury. Seligson v. Young, 189 Pa.Super. 510, 151 A.2d 792. We may reverse the finding of a trial judge sitting without a jury only when the testimony would have warranted binding instructions, if the case had been before a jury. Banca D'Italia & Tr. Co v. Giordano, 154 Pa.Super. 452, 36 A.2d 242.

Appellant's contention is that the finding of the trial judge 'cannot possibly be true in view of demonstrated physical evidence'. He argues that the instant case 'comes within the incontrovertible physical facts rule', citing Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 139 Pa.Super. 256, 11 A.2d 665, and Kennedy v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 333 Pa. 406, 3 A.2d 395. The factual situation in each of those cases is readily distinguishable from that in the case at bar. Appellant urges that a photograph of the damage to his car conclusively establishes that the collision 'could not possibly have occurred as related by Miss Krobot because it is physically impossible for such to be the case'. However, a...