is no reason why this lamp would not have been in the same condition as the lamps which were observed on the rear of the truck.
In addition the defendant did not object to the questions which were asked in connection with the condition of the lamps on the rear of the truck and it is, therefore, not proper to raise said question at this time. Inadmissible evidence, including hearsay evidence, admitted without objection is not a nullity or void of probative force, but is to be given its natural probative effect as if it were in law admissible. O'Boyle v. Harry Seitz & Sons, Appellant, 105 Pa.Super. 135, 160 A. 145; Pataky v. Allen Motor Co., Appellant, 100 Pa.Super. 343; Harrah v. Montour R. Co., 321 Pa. 526, 184 A. 666; Barlow v. Verrill, 88 N.H. 25, 183 A. 857, 104 A.L.R. 1130.
The argument, therefore, amounts to 'much to do about nothing.'
As to the other questions which have been raised in the motion for a new trial, I believe that the same have all been thoroughly considered and answered in the former opinion of the Court. 70 F.Supp. 555.
The motion for a new trial in each of said cases is, therefore, refused.
The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict sets forth two reasons:
1. That the evidence did not establish any negligence of the Roadway Transit Company which was a proximate cause of the accident.
2. William Charles Barringer, the only next of kin of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, having been found by the Court to have been guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident, the Administrator is not entitled to recover.
It is argued that the evidence did not establish any negligence of the Roadway Transit Company which was the proximate matter of the accident. The Court thoroughly considered and evaluated the testimony prior to filing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The reasons expressed by the Court need not be repeated here since in the opinion previously filed, the same were explained in detail together with the basis for the conclusions reached. 70 F.Supp. 555.
It is next contended that since William Charles Barringer, the only next of kin of Mary Anne Barringer, deceased, was guilty of negligence which contributed to the death of his wife, a right to recover should not be allowed in his capacity as administrator for the reason that he would be gaining indirectly what could not be secured directly.
The Court considered this question in an exhaustive manner prior to the award being made in favor of the administrator, and counsel have presented no cases for the attention of the court which would justify a different conclusion.
I have previously found that the action under the Survival Statute in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was not barred by the Statute of Limitations for the reason that the accident occurred on the 21st day of June, 1942, and the action was filed on June 20, 1944, the period of limitation being two years. 70 F.Supp. 555.
In connection with the motion filed for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant, I cannot find any just basis under the evidence or the law to modify or change the conclusions of law which have been reached. 70 F.Supp. 555.
The motion to set aside the verdict and judgment, and for judgment in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict is refused.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.