Trusty v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 17 March 1930
• Docket Number: 92
• Citation: 299 Pa. 469,149 A. 717
• Parties: Trusty et ux. v. Patterson et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

149 A. 717

299 Pa. 469

Trusty et ux. v. Patterson et al., Appellants

No. 92

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 17, 1930

Argued January 27, 1930

Appeal, No. 92, Jan. T., 1930, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Berks Co., June T., 1928, No. 118, on verdict for plaintiffs, in case of Howard J. Trusty et ux. v. Earl B Patterson et al. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before MAYS, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for Howard J. Trusty for $500 and for Sallie Trusty for $4,000. Defendants appealed.

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

The judgment is affirmed.

Fletcher W. Stites, with him Emanuel Weiss, George Eves and C. H Ruhl, for appellants, cited: Jaras v. Wright, 263 Pa. 486; Cochran v. R.R., 184 Pa. 565; Thubron v. Contracting Co., 238 Pa. 443; Griffin v. Ry., 67 Pa.Super. 392; S.S. Pass. Ry. v. Trich, 117 Pa. 390; Marsh v. Giles, 211 Pa. 17; Wood v. R.R., 177 Pa. 306; Bannon v. R.R., 29 Pa.Super. 231; Weiss v. London G. & A. Co., 280 Pa. 325.

John B. Stevens, with him Walter B. Freed, Harry W. Lee and Ralph C. Body, for appellee, cited: Jenkins v. Fady, 294 Pa. 490.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sued to recover damages for personal injuries to the wife, the result of her being struck by an automobile owned by defendant, and at the time of the accident driven by one to whom defendant had rented the car for hire. The theory on which plaintiffs' sought to hold defendant liable was that the automobile had been hired out with knowledge that the brakes were in a defective condition and that such defects were the proximate cause of the accident. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appealed.

Defendant conducted a garage in the City of Reading and, in connection therewith, was engaged in the business of hiring automobiles to persons who desired to do the driving themselves. The particular car in question was hired by Chester Lewandoski who, shortly after taking the car out, discovered the brakes were not holding properly. He drove back to defendant's garage and explained the trouble but was told it was the only machine for hire at the time and to "take it out anyway." He did so, and later in the day, upon approaching a curve and bridge at a speed of from 25 to 30 miles an hour, he saw Mrs. Trusty, one of plaintiffs, standing along the side of the highway near the end of the bridge and five or six feet from the roadway. He applied the foot brakes, causing the car to skid to the left side, and upon immediately applying the emergency brake, the machine swung to the right and struck Mrs. Trusty where she stood at one side and off the traveled portion of the highway.

Both foot and hand brakes were defective. The effect of applying the brakes caused the machine to turn to one side due to the fact that the brakes were out of adjustment and failed to hold equally on both wheels, forcing the car to skid, even though the road was an ordinary gravel highway. It appears that, had the car not skidded, there would have been ample room to pass plaintiff without striking her. The driver had difficulty on another occasion during the same day when the car stalled on a hill and...