Prinkey v. Township of Dunbar

• Decision Date: 14 July 1932
• Docket Number: 118-1932,119-1932
• Citation: 105 Pa.Super. 326,161 A. 640
• Parties: Prinkey et al. v. Township of Dunbar, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

161 A. 640

105 Pa.Super. 326

Prinkey et al. v. Township of Dunbar, Appellant

Nos. 118-1932, 119-1932

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 14, 1932

Argued April 19, 1932

Appeal by defendant from judgments of C. P., Fayette County December T., 1929, No. 642 and December T., 1930, No. 317, in the case of R. D. Prinkey, by his father and next friend, J M. Prinkey, and J. M. Prinkey and Sarah B. Prinkey, his wife in their own right v. Township of Dunbar.

Trespass to recover for personal injuries and for damage to truck. Before Hudson, P. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdicts for R. D. Prinkey in the sum of $ 1,125; for J. M. Prinkey and Sarah B. Prinkey as parents of R. D. Prinkey in the sum of $ 258.50, and for J. M. Prinkey in the sum of $ 1,268 and judgments entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Affirmed.

E. C. Higbee of Higbee, Matthews and Llewellyn, for appellants.

E. B. Brown, and with him J. C. Glassburn, for appellees.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.

OPINION

Trexler, P. J.

Actions of trespass against a township to recover damages by reason of a truck breaking through a floor of a bridge. The lower court states the facts, as shown by plaintiffs, as follows:

"Robert D. Prinkey, aged nineteen and J. M. Prinkey, aged sixty-one, were engaged in hauling and delivering coal to customers over this township road and bridge. Robert drove the one-ton Ford truck and his father sat by his side in the cab. In delivering coal they drove over the bridge in an easterly direction, and in returning to the coal mine, in a westerly direction. At four. P. M. the Prinkeys approached the eastern end of the bridge, travelling at a speed from eight to ten miles per hour. Robert was driving the truck, and it was empty. This was a one-way bridge, partly covered with coal ashes, and the track which was followed was diagonal, starting on the right at the eastern side, and ending on the left at the western edge of the bridge, as the Prinkeys were travelling. When they were two-thirds of the way across the bridge, they heard a noise, as of breaking wood, felt a sudden jar, a bump like an axle bumping on wood, some boards on their left raised up, the steering wheel was knocked out of Robert's hands, the left front wheel of the truck went down, the car turned over on its left side, and then went over the side of the bridge into the bed of the stream. When it came to rest the wheels were in the air and the men were in the cab.

As to the construction of the bridge, it was fourteen feet long and thirteen feet wide; the two sills of the bridge were of oak, eight by twelve inches, ran with the road, and rested on stone abutments; between the sills, and paralleling them, were five railroad irons or beams, which were approximately two feet apart, and these also rested on the stone abutments. The floor of the bridge was of oak planks, which rested on the sills and iron beams. There was a guard rail on the upper or northern side of the bridge, but none on the southern side.

It also appears from plaintiff's testimony that when the car broke through the bridge there were three planks broken, one of the planks being broken into two pieces. All but one of these planks were offered in evidence. The hole which was made by the left front wheel of the truck was inside of the wooden sill on the southern side, was from six to eight inches wide, and thirty inches long. The planks next to the hole were pushed forward something like six inches. The oak planks comprising the floor of the bridge were of different thicknesses and widths, were affected with dry rot, and had not been replaced for many years." The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs.

(1) An objection urged by the defendant is that the physical facts show that the accident did not occur in the way plaintiffs claim, that they have stated that the accident happened in a certain way, and the proof showed that it happened in some other way, and that this must necessarily defeat the action. The picture drawn by the plaintiffs is that the planks in the bridge were broken inside of one of the sills, which on each side were the outermost support of the bridge, and the breaking of these planks inside the sill caused the truck to topple over the side of the bridge and land in an upturned position in the dry run beneath. The appellant...