"1. In the action of William Charles Barringer against the Roadway Transit Company for personal injuries sustained by him, a right to recover was denied and judgment entered in favor of the Roadway Transit Company, at the cost of the plaintiff, William Charles Barringer.
"2. In the action of William Charles Barringer under the Wrongful Death Statute, the same was dismissed and judgment entered in favor of the Roadway Transit Company, at the cost of the plaintiff, William Charles Barringer.
"3. In the action of William Charles Barringer as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, under the Survival Statute, judgment was entered in favor of William Charles Barringer, Administrator of the Estate of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, against the Roadway Transit Company, in the amount of $3,000.00, at the cost of said defendant.
"4. In the action of Barthol Stafford for personal injuries and damages sustained by him, judgment was entered against the Roadway Transit Company and William Charles Barringer in the amount of $1269.00, at the cost of the defendants.
"5. In the action of Barthol Stafford for damages incurred as a result of the injuries sustained by his wife, Margaret Stafford, judgment was entered in favor of Barthol Stafford against the Roadway Transit Company and William Charles Barringer in the amount of $1691.00, at the cost of the defendants.
"6. In the action of Margaret Stafford for personal injuries sustained by her, judgment was entered against the Roadway Transit Company and William Charles Barringer in the amount of $4031.00, at the cost of the defendants."
"Roadway Transit Company, the above named Defendant, moves your Honorable Court to grant a new trial in the above and assigns therefor the following reasons:
"1. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in directing that judgment should be entered in favor of William Charles Barringer as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, and against the Roadway Transit Company.
"2. That the verdict was against the evidence.
"3. That the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
"4. That the verdict was against the law.
"5. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his tenth Finding of Fact, which said Finding is as follows:
"`10. That at the time and place of said collision, William Charles Barringer was operating the motor vehicle owned by Barthol Stafford and was solely responsible for the operation and control of said vehicle.'
"6. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his twentieth Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`20. * * * However, the rear lights were not discernible for a distance greater than 100 feet due to the lights being covered with debris, dirt and other foreign matter, and did not comply with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'
"7. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his twenty-first Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`21. That said condition of the rear lights of the Roadway Transit Company truck was an act of negligence which contributed to the accident.'
"8. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his twenty-seventh Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`27. That the operator of the tractor-trailer truck of the defendant, Roadway Transit Company, did not operate said vehicle at a rate of speed that was reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway, and the circumstances and conditions then and there existing.'
"9. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his thirty-second Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`32. That the operator of the equipment of the Roadway Transit Company did not have lights on the rear of said vehicle which were clearly discernible to approaching traffic at his rear for a distance of 500 feet, but said lights were only discernible for approximately 100 feet.'
"10. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his thirty-third Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`33. That the driver of the tractor-trailer motor vehicle of the Roadway Transit Company was not vigilant, nor did he operate the same in a cautious, careful and prudent manner under the circumstances.'
"11. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in his thirty-fifth Finding of Fact, which Finding is as follows:
"`35. That at the time and place of said accident, the Roadway Transit Company truck was obstructing part of the traveled portion of the right side of said highway.'
"12. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in not making the following as a finding of fact, viz.: That immediately prior to the accident Ward Brane, the driver of the Midwest truck, was waving a fusee endeavoring to attract the attention of the driver, William Charles Barringer.
"13. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in not making the following as a finding of fact, viz.: That one of the lanterns on the rear of the Roadway Transit trailer was removed from the trailer shortly after the happening of the collision and prior to Private Reeder arriving at the scene of the accident.
"14. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in not making the following as a finding of fact, viz.: That the fusee or fusees placed out by the witness Brane could be observed for a distance of more than one mile from the scene of the accident.
"15. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`2. That the original defendant, Roadway Transit Company, was guilty of negligence which contributed to and brought about the accident.'
"16. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`4. That the said accident was caused by the joint and concurrent negligence of the Roadway Transit Company, the original defendant, and William Charles Barringer, the additional defendant.'
"17. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`5. That the defendant, Roadway Transit Company, failed to comply with the specific requirements of the Acts of Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania pertaining to rear lights and flares, and that such failure was negligence.'
"18. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`6. That the tractor-trailer vehicle of the defendant, Roadway Transit Company, was operated in a negligent manner and at a rate of speed that was not cautious, careful and prudent, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway, and circumstances and conditions then and there existing.'
"19. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`7. That the tractor-trailer unit of the Roadway Transit Company at the time and place of the accident did not carry a rear lamp of a type which exhibited a red light or any light plainly visible under normal atmospheric conditions for a distance of 500 feet to the rear of said vehicle.'
"20. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`12. That the plaintiff, William Charles Barringer, as administrator of the Estate of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, is entitled to recover against the Roadway Transit Company.'
"21. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in finding as a Conclusion of Law the following:
"`19. That William Charles Barringer as the administrator of the Estate of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, is entitled to recover against the Roadway Transit Company, in his action filed under the Survival Statute of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the amount of $3,000.00.'
"22. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in not finding as a conclusion of law that the condition of the rear lights of the Roadway Transit outfit was not in any manner a proximate cause of the accident.
"23. That the Learned Trial Judge erred in not finding as a conclusion of law that the accident was due solely to the negligence of William Charles Barringer."
