Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PARKES ET UX. v. OPFERMANN (01/17/56)

January 17, 1956

PARKES ET UX.
v.
OPFERMANN, APPELLANT.



Appeals, Nos. 154 and 155, April T., 1955, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1953, Nos. 1408 and 1407, in cases of Wesley J. Parkes et ux. v. Frank J. Opfermann and Walter Parkes et ux. v. Frank J. Opfermann. Judgments affirmed.

COUNSEL

Walter W. Riehl, for appellant.

Leo J. Kelly, Jr., for appellees.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.

Author: Woodside

[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 186]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

These are suits in assumpsit brought by Wesley J. Parkes and wife and Walter Parkes and wife against Frank J. Opfermann, a building contractor, who had contracted in writing with each couple to construct identical houses in accordance with written specifications. The cases were consolidated and tried as one.

The defendant contractor has appealed from the refusal of the lower court to grant new trials after jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs in each case.

The appellant contends that the lower court abused its discretion in not granting a new trial on the grounds that (1) the verdicts were not warranted by the evidence and (2) they were excessive.

The plaintiffs, having verdicts in their favor, must be given the benefit of every fact and inference of fact which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence, and the testimony must be read in the light most favorable to them. Christ v. Hill Metal & Roofing Company, 314 Pa. 375, 171 A. 607 (1934).

The plaintiffs averred that approximately four months after the houses had been constructed by the defendant and occupied by the plaintiffs defects developed which were the result of the defendant's failure to meet certain specifications in the contracts.

The plaintiffs relied on the testimony of an expert witness, a graduate licensed engineer. The defendant contractor relied on his own testimony and that of two sub-contractors who had done the work.

The plaintiffs testified that both the basement and garage floors in each house cracked, and upon removing a piece of concrete from the basement floors it was discovered that the floors were only one and a half to two inches thick. The contract provided that these floors should be three inches in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.