Appeals, Nos. 244 and 245, March T., 1954, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1951, No. 1643, in case of Helen Balla v. Anna Y. Sladek, Admrx., Estate of William J. Sladek, Deceased, et al. Judgments affirmed.
Sanford M. Chilcote, with him David B. Fawcett, Jr., and Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote, Reif & Robinson, for defendant borough, appellant.
A. H. Rosenberg, with him Rosenberg & Rosenberg, for individual defendant, appellant.
Abe R. Cohen, with him Theodore H. Schmidt and Crone & Cohen, for plaintiff, appellee.
Chauncey Pruger, with him James R. Orr and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for additional defendants, appellees.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD
Plaintiff sued in trespass for injuries suffered by her in a collision of the automobile in which she was a guest passenger. Original defendants are the Borough of East Pittsburgh and the estate of the owner and operator of the automobile. East Pittsburgh brought in the two railroads as additional defendants. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff against the original defendants but in favor of the additional defendants.
East Pittsburgh appeals from the refusal of its motions for judgment n.o.v. and new trial, contending: (1) that no negligence in the borough was established, and that if negligent, it was not proved the proximate cause of the injuries; (2) that a new trial should be granted because (a) the court erred in excluding testimony as to plaintiff's declarations offered as admissions and tending to show contributory negligence, (b) the court erred in its refusal of a motion to withdraw a juror because of prejudicial remarks by counsel for the estate in his closing to the jury, and (c) the verdict in favor of the two railroads was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence.
The estate appeals from the refusal of its motions for judgment n.o.v. and new trial, and contends that the evidence shows due care was exercised by the deceased; that plaintiff's counsel made prejudicial remarks in the jury's presence; and that the court erred in refusing to consolidate for trial the instant case
and the action brought by the estate against the ...