Citation Numbers: 149 A. 883, 298 Pa. 211
Judges: PER CURIAM, November 25, 1929:
Filed Date: 10/8/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued October 8, 1929. This case is before us on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto alone. We adopt the following excerpts from the opinion of the court below refusing to enter such judgment:
"At about 10:30 p. m. on March 1, 1927, plaintiff's husband, a street sweeper employed by the City of Pittsburgh, while engaged at his work __________, was struck by a truck owned by defendant and bearing its trade name. Defendant admitted formally that the driver of the truck was its employee and that he was negligent in operation of [the] car, but it contended that he had abandoned its business shortly after 5:00 o'clock p. m. on the day of the accident, and had gone on a mission of his own. In support of this contention, defendant offered evidence [tending to show that the accident happened when the driver was using the truck for his own purposes].
"Plaintiff offered no evidence to contradict defendant's testimony relative to the duties of the driver and his movements on the night in question. She relied entirely upon the presumptions arising from the fact that the vehicle which caused the injury was a business automobile bearing defendant's trade name and in charge of its employee. When these presumptions arise from proven facts they ordinarily entitle plaintiff to have the case submitted to a jury. This rule is discussed in all of its aspects in the comparatively recent case of Hartig v. American Ice Co. et al.,
"Defendant contends that the present case falls within subdivisions (b) and (c) of the exception to the general rule above stated. The 'indisputable physical conditions' on which it relies are, (1) that the truck contained no merchandise after the desk had been delivered; (2) that the shipper left the warehouse at 5:00 o'clock and locked the door, making it impossible for the driver to return to the warehouse and procure other goods; (3) that the accident took place more than five hours after the driver's working day ended; and (4) that the place of the accident is far removed from the warehouse, and the truck was proceeding away from the warehouse and not toward it. The 'unattacked documentary evidence' is a delivery blank showing the order upon which the desk was shipped and the receipt of the American *Page 215 Railway Express Company showing delivery of the desk to it at 5:00 o'clock.
"The physical-facts-and-mathematical-tests theory are not applicable to this case. The facts here are not of the kind included in the terms 'indisputable physical condition,' nor do they furnish the basis for mathematical tests demonstratively overcoming the presumptions in plaintiff's favor. The defendant's case rested entirely upon oral evidence which, under the authority of Hartig v. American Ice Co., supra, and the pertinent cases preceding it, must go to a jury. Nor is the documentary evidence of the character which relieves the defendant from the possibility of liability."
The judgment is affirmed.
Miller v. Service and Sales, Inc. , 149 Or. 11 ( 1934 )
Davis v. Underdahl , 140 Or. 242 ( 1932 )
Nalevanko v. Marie , 328 Pa. 586 ( 1937 )
Readshaw Et Ux. v. Montgomery , 313 Pa. 206 ( 1933 )
Deater v. Penn Machine Co. , 311 Pa. 291 ( 1933 )
Sweeney v. Pittsburgh , 348 Pa. 80 ( 1943 )
Midora v. Alfieri (Et Al.) , 341 Pa. 27 ( 1941 )
Klein Et Ux. v. F. W. Woolworth Co. , 309 Pa. 320 ( 1932 )
Sefton v. Valley Dairy Co. , 345 Pa. 324 ( 1942 )
Krajnik Et Ux. v. Monon. Val. Bus. Co. , 99 Pa. Super. 120 ( 1930 )