Venorick v. Revetta
| Citation | 33 A.2d 655,152 Pa.Super. 455 |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | 161-1943 |
| Parties | Venorick v. Revetta, Appellant, et al |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
April 20, 1943, Argued
Appeal from judgment of C. P. Fayette Co., Sept. T., 1940, No. 730 in case of Agnes Venorick v. Russell Revetta et al.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before Dumbauld, P. J.
Verdict for plaintiff and against defendants. Motions by defendants for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial refused, before Dumbauld, P. J., Carr and Morrow, JJ., opinion by Dumbauld P. J., Carr, J., dissenting. Defendant, Revetta, appealed.
Judgment reversed.
W Brown Higbee, of Higbee, Lewellyn & Higbee, for appellant.
Thomas A. Waggoner, Jr., with him E. J. McDaniel, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ. (Hirt, J., absent).
This action against Revetta and Pendleton is to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when an automobile driven by Pendleton struck and wedged her against the rear of Revetta's truck which was parked on the highway in violation of Section 1019 of the Vehicle Code. [1] Verdict and judgment were entered against both. Revetta alone appeals from the refusal of his motion for judgment n.o.v.
The principal question is whether the illegal parking of the truck was, in law, a concurrent cause of the accident or whether Pendleton's negligence was the sole proximate cause.
The accident happened in broad daylight about three-thirty P. M. on February 7, 1940. Revetta operated a meat and grocery business, serving a number of customers by truck. His regular route included the village of Little Cleveland where plaintiff lived. The truck was parked on the right-hand side of the highway with the right wheels off the paved portion near the home of plaintiff who, with other customers, had come out to the truck. When she was struck, plaintiff had just made her purchase and was standing with her back towards traffic approaching the truck from the rear. We assume, because it is not controverted, that the truck was parked in violation of Section 1019. The exact position of the truck was not described. The paved portion of the highway together with the shoulder allowed twenty-one feet four inches and the truck was five feet six inches wide. There was probably almost the fifteen feet of clear space required by the act.
Pendleton saw the truck when he was about 300 feet away from it; he was travelling 20 to 25 miles per hour; and without reducing his speed, he attempted to pass it. He pulled slightly to his left when he was "fifteen to twenty yards back" and seeing a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction and realizing it would be impossible to pass the truck without colliding with it he turned back to his right and applied his brakes. Because of the slippery condition of the highway his brakes did not hold; he skidded and ran into plaintiff and the truck.
Cases in which illegally parked vehicles have figured in highway accidents have quite frequently appeared in the decisions of our appellate courts. The Supreme Court has so clearly stated the governing test of proximate cause that we are freed of the responsibility of seeking it and of critically scrutinizing it. It is thus stated in Kline v. Moyer and Albert, 325 Pa. 357, 364, 191 A. 43: "Where a second actor has become aware of the existence of a potential danger created by the negligence of an original tort-feasor and thereafter, by an independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial