DocketNumber: Appeal, 99
Judges: Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer, Plaintiff
Filed Date: 9/30/1930
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages for himself and children on account of the death of his wife, averring that it was caused by the defendant's negligence. This appeal is by the latter from judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff. The parties resided in Mercer and, on November 26, 1926, the defendant drove his seven passenger touring car to Pittsburgh, having as his guest, inter alia, the plaintiff's wife, Gertrude Z. Filer. During the return trip that evening and on the paved highway known as the Butler Pike, defendant so drove his car that it collided with a truck headed in the same direction, which had just stopped on the right side of and partly on the pavement. The night was dark and raining, with some fog, and defendant contends he was *Page 464 unable to see the truck until within fifteen or twenty feet, when he turned to the left, but the right side of his car was crushed by contact with the rear of the truck. Plaintiff's wife, who was seated on the right side of the rear seat, was instantly killed. The highway, approaching the truck, was straight and defendant was driving, as he testified, thirty miles an hour, then the maximum lawful speed. Defendant's headlights were burning; there was also a red light under the rear end of the truck, which defendant said he did not see, and whether he could have seen it was not clear.
The defendant was required to use ordinary care for the safety of his guest (Farrell v. Solski,
The trial judge instructed the jury in effect that if the injury resulted from the defendant's negligence there might be a recovery unless the injured party was guilty of contributory negligence, but failed to define that term or to explain what conduct on part of the guest would constitute it. This was an inadequate presentation of the subject (Gallup v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.,
The verdict, while large, is not so excessive as to warrant our interference. In Scott v. American Express Co.,
True, plaintiff, by an oversight, omitted proof of his wife's exact age, but from all the circumstances the jury could conclude that her approximate age was near that of her husband; in fact, as stated at bar, she was a year younger than he. The evidence shows she graduated from Wilson College in 1908, was married in 1911, and left three children, three, eight and thirteen years of age at the time of her death, and that her husband was then forty years of age. It has often been said that in such case the age of the deceased should be shown (Buckman v. Phila. Reading Ry.,
The judgment is affirmed. *Page 467
Gallup v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. ( 1928 )
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Goodman ( 1869 )
Scott v. American Express Co. ( 1917 )
Buckman v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. ( 1910 )
Serfas v. Lehigh & New England Railroad ( 1921 )
Gaber Et Ux. v. Weinberg ( 1936 )
Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc. ( 1939 )
Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Co. ( 1939 )
Dubrock v. Interstate Motor Freight System ( 1944 )
Gordish v. Steffinina ( 1932 )
Mason v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc. ( 1930 )
Di Giuseppe v. Hrivnak ( 1948 )
Janeway v. Lafferty Bros. ( 1936 )
Knoble Et Ux. v. Ritter ( 1941 )