Van Tine v. Cornelius
| Decision Date | 08 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | 3486 |
| Citation | 50 A.2d 299,355 Pa. 584 |
| Parties | Van Tine et ux. v. Cornelius, Admr., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 29, 1946
Appeal, No. 236, Jan. T., 1946, from judgments of C.P McKean Co., Dec. T., 1945, No. 149, in case of Chester L. Van Tine et ux. v. Millard E. Cornelius, Admr., Estate of Joseph B. Vecellio. Judgments affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries and property damage. Before HUBBARD P.J.
Verdicts for plaintiff husband in the sum of $3547, and for plaintiff wife in the sum of $20,000 remitted to $15,000, and judgments thereon. Defendant appealed.
Judgments affirmed.
W. D. Gallup , with him F. D. Gallup, E. G. Potter and Gallup, Potter & Gallup , for appellant.
R. T. Mutzabaugh , with him Nash & Mutzabaugh , for appellees.
Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
This action in trespass arose out of a collision on State Highway 219, in McKean County, between a passenger automobile owned and driven by Chester L. Van Tine, and a truck owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Highways, and driven by Joseph B. Vecellio. Suit was instituted by Van Tine and his wife, Ruth, against the Administrator of the estate of Vecellio (he having died after the accident but before trial from causes in no way related to the collision), to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the woman plaintiff, who was a passenger in her husband's car, and for damages to the automobile. The jury found for plaintiffs, and the court below refused defendant's motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial. Defendant appealed from the judgments entered on the verdicts.
On the afternoon of December 5, 1944, at about three o'clock, Van Tine was driving his Plymouth sedan, and his wife was sitting on the front seat thereof with him, in a southerly direction on Route 219 between Bradford and Custer City. At the same time Vecellio was driving a large Indiana dump truck, loaded with ashes, west-wardly on a private dirt road, which intersects Route 219 on an upgrade from the east only. At this point Route 219 is of macadam construction, 23 or 24 feet in width and practically level. It was wet, but had no snow or ice on it, and the side road was muddy and slippery. As Vecellio first attempted to enter Route 219 there was traffic approaching, so his truck had to be backed down to get another start. He then proceeded up the grade the second time and without stopping, although he admittedly saw the Van Tine car approaching 200 feet to the north on Route 219, drove his truck to the west of that highway, and then turned to his left into the south bound lane. While he was thus turning, the right rear panel of the truck was struck by the left side of the bumper and left fender of the Van Tine car. Van Tine had applied the brakes of his car, but did not succeed in preventing the collision, his car having skidded somewhat on the wet highway. After the accident, the truck and automobile were found standing in the south bound lane of Route 219, the Van Tine car nearly opposite the private road and the truck 20 to 30 feet to the south. In the collision Mrs. Van Tine was painfully and permanently injured and her husband's car was damaged.
It is the contention of defendant that there is no evidence or reasonable inferences from any evidence in the case which show any negligence on the part of Vecellio which was the proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by plaintiffs.
No eyewitnesses testified as to the collision. The only persons present at that time were Vecellio and plaintiffs. On objection of counsel for defendant, plaintiffs were held to be incompetent to testify to any facts having any bearing upon the accident that occurred prior to the death of Vecellio. Plaintiffs' witnesses as to the actual happening were a State Policeman, who testified as to the admissions made by Vecellio the day following the collision, and three other persons who visited the scene a very short time after the accident occurred.
It is well established that testimony of eyewitnesses to an accident is it essential, as long as there...
To continue reading
Request your trial