Skocich v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1935
• Docket Number: 236,237
• Citation: 176 A. 19,317 Pa. 26
• Parties: Skocich et al. v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

176 A. 19

317 Pa. 26

Skocich et al. v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Company, Appellant

Nos. 236, 237

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 7, 1935

Argued October 2, 1934

Appeals, Nos. 236 and 237, March T., 1934, from judgments of C.P. Beaver Co., March T., 1934, No. 146, in cases of William F. Skocich, by his father and next friend, v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Company, and Frank Skocich v. F.J. Boutell Driveaway Company. Judgments affirmed.

Trespass. Before McCONNEL, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for parent plaintiff in amount of $1,000 and for child plaintiff in amount of $5,000. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned, inter alia, were judgments, quoting record.

The judgments are affirmed in both appeals.

Forest G. Moorhead, with him John G. Marshall, of Moorhead &amp Marshall and J. Quint Salmon and George W. Moorhead, for appellants.

Lawrence M. Sebring, for appellees.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William F. Skocich, a minor six and one-half years old, and his father, Frank Skocich obtained verdicts of $5,000 and $1,000, respectively, in their suits to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the child as a result of being struck by an automobile driven by Howard E. Olson, who, according to the allegations of the statement of claim, was the agent and employee of defendant company, and at the time of the accident, acting in the course of his employment. Judgments were entered on the verdicts in favor of the father and son, and defendant now appeals from the refusal of the court below to award judgment non obstante veredicto in both instances. The two appeals will be considered together.

Appellant raises only two questions for our consideration. The first contention is that the evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the car was insufficient to submit to the jury. Upon examination of the record we are of opinion that, although the testimony as to just how the accident occurred is somewhat conflicting, considering it in the light most favorable to plaintiffs there is ample evidence to sustain the verdicts of the jury. The assignments of error raising this point must accordingly be dismissed.

Appellant also contends there was no adequate proof that Olson was the agent or employee of defendant company. It is true no evidence was offered on this point;...