Luderer v. Moore

• Decision Date: 27 November 1933
• Docket Number: 172
• Citation: 169 A. 106,313 Pa. 71
• Parties: Luderer v. Moore, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

169 A. 106

313 Pa. 71

Luderer v. Moore, Appellant

No. 172

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 27, 1933

Argued September 28, 1933

Appeal, No. 172, March T., 1933, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., 1932, No. 285, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of May Luderer v. Leonard Moore. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before DARR, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment n.o.v., quoting record.

Judgment affirmed.

Raymond E. Brown, with him Matthew A. Crawford, for appellant.

Edward Friedman, Charles J. Margiotti and John E. Evans, Sr., for appellee, were not heard.

Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from refusal of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment non obstante veredicto on a verdict in favor of plaintiff against him for injuries received in an automobile accident.

The facts are practically undisputed. The accident occurred on July 22, 1931, at 9:30 p.m., while defendant, driving his sedan car, was returning to Punxsutawney from an automobile ride with plaintiff and three other guests. The car was traveling on a descending grade of 5.4 per cent, with a slight curve. Rain had fallen during the evening and the macadam road was wet. The car was at the time operated in free wheeling, in other words, it was coasting, at a speed of about 40 miles an hour, and upon defendant's applying the hydraulic, four-wheel brakes, it skidded sharply to the left striking the left bank of the road and turning completely around, throwing two other guests who were riding with plaintiff on the back seat against her with such force as to severely and permanently injure her. The skidding of the car would not of itself establish negligence upon the part of defendant (Johnson v. American Reduction Co., 305 Pa. 537, 541), nor would the fact, standing alone, that the brakes were suddenly applied contrary to correct operation of the car, constitute negligence; both elements, however, were matters for the consideration of the jury under proper instructions, together with the other evidence in the case. Here, the skidding and braking were not the sole questions upon which defendant's negligence turned. The accident happened after dark; defendant was...