Samuels v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 06 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 3479 |
| Citation | 50 A.2d 670,355 Pa. 624 |
| Parties | Samuels v. Johnson et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued December 2, 1946
Appeals, Nos. 113 and 114, March T., 1946, from judgment of C.P., Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1945, No. 885, in case of Julia Samuels v. Karl C. Johnson, Sr., et al. Judgment affirmed reargument refused January 28, 1947.
Actions in trespass for property damage and personal injuries. Before ELLENBOGEN, J.
Verdicts for defendants; plaintiff's motions for new trials granted and separate trials ordered, before PATTERSON MARSHALL and ELLENBOGEN, JJ., opinion per curiam. Defendants appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
James J. Burns, Jr ., with him Gustav M. Berg , for appellants.
John E. Evans, Jr ., with him Evans, Evans & Spinelli, Harold H. Harter , and Wallace M. Parker , for appellee.
Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
This was an action in trespass brought by Julia Samuels against Karl C. Johnson, Sr., and his minor son, Karl C. Johnson, Jr., to recover for personal injuries sustained when an automobile owned by the former and operated by the latter collided with an autobile owned and operated by Eugene W. Yost, in which she was riding as a passenger. Yost was brought upon the record as additional defendant in this action and a separate action was instituted by the Johnsons against Yost for personal injuries and property damage, in which action Yost filed a counterclaim.
These two actions and a third action brought by Charles A. Schweitzer and Catherine Schweitzer, his wife, also passengers in the Yost machine, against the Johnsons, original defendants, and Yost, additional defendant, were all tried together before one jury with the following results [1]: in Samuels v. Johnson, Sr ., defendant, and Yost and Johnson, Jr ., additional defendants, verdict for defendants; in Schweitzer and Schweitzer v. Johnson, Sr ., defendant, and Yost and Johnson, Jr ., additional defendants, verdict for defendants; in Johnson, Sr. and Johnson, Jr. v. Yost , verdict for Johnson, Sr., in the amount of $1200 and verdict for Johnson, Jr. in the amount of $100. Plaintiffs in the Samuels and Schweitzer cases filed motions for a new trial which the court below granted as to all defendants. Yost also moved for a new trial in the action brought against him by the Johnsons, but the motion was later withdrawn and judgment on the verdict against him has since been paid and satisfied. Karl C. Johnson, Sr. and Karl C. Johnson, Jr. have appealed from the granting of a new trial as to them.
Appellants state: "The only question raised by these appeals is a legal one, namely, is the judgment in Johnson v. Yost , in favor of the Johnsons, determinative of their liability arising out of this accident." Clearly that judgment, unappealed from, is determinative of their liability in that action. It is not, however, determinative of their liability in this action.
The case relied upon by appellants as authority for the proposition that judgment in their favor in Johnson and Johnson v. Yost is res judicata as to their negligence here, Barker v. Barrett, 145 Pa.Super 22, 20 A.2d 812, is authority for exactly the opposite. That case involved a collision between an automobile owned by Felker and another owned by Barrett and driven by Barchfield. Barrett instituted an action against Felker and a second action was brought by Barker, a passenger in the Felker automobile, against Barrett and Barchfield jointly. In the latter action Felker was brought in as additional defendant. Both actions were tried together, resulting in a verdict for Barrett in his action against Felker, and a verdict for defendants in the action brought by Barker, the injured passenger. Barker was granted a new trial as to the additional defendant, Felker, but was refused a new trial as to original defendants, Barrett and Barchfield, on the ground that the judgment on the verdict in the case of Barrett v. Felker was res judicata as to Felker's negligence. On appeal by Felker from the order granting a new trial as to her only, the appeal was dismissed for the principal reason that the judgment on the verdict in favor of original defendants, unappealed from by either plaintiff or the additional defendant, would necessarily be res judicata as to them on any retrial of the case. On the correctness of the trial court's reason for refusing a new trial as to original defendants, however, the Superior Court, opinion by KELLER, P.J., had this to say (p. 25): "The court may have erred in its opinion in holding that the verdict in the case of Barrett v. Felker , which was tried at the same time, and is now satisfied, was res judicata as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial