Appeal, No. 102, March T., 1956, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1952, No. 1811, in case of Jack Lewis v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Judgment affirmed. Trespass for personal injuries. Before O'BRIEN, J. Verdict for plaintiff in sum of $16,000 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
Con F. McGregor, for appellant.
Seymour A. Sikov, with him John Wirtzman, for appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD
In this action of trespass for negligence, following the jury's verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $16,000, defendant filed motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and new trial. From the denial of
these motions by the court below, defendant appeals.
After reading the record, we accept the statement of facts given by the court below as established by the testimony: "... the plaintiff was operating his truck in the roadway with the left wheels thereof within the ... [street railway car] tracks of the defendant; that the plaintiff did not have any knowledge of the presence of defendant's street car behind him until a few moments before the impact; that, at the time of the impact, the plaintiff was proceeding to move his truck over to the right to allow the street car to pass; that the defendant's motorman was operating the street car in the same direction as the truck and behind it; and that, some distance before the impact, the defendant's motorman observed that the left wheels of the truck were within the defendant's tracks." There was sufficient credible evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer negligence on the part of defendant's motorman. Definitely, there were conflicting views of the collision, and it is the jury's province to determine the facts. Defendant's negligence was for the jury: Hinton v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 359 Pa. 381, 59 A.2d 151.
Defendant avers as basis for a new trial that the court below erred in admitting testimony regarding certain rights of plaintiff under a union contract, and the charge thereon, as an element of plaintiff's damages resulting from loss of earning power. Counsel for the defendant argued before this Court that since the union contract was in existence, the best evidence rule should apply, and therefore the testimony as to the contract provision was inadmissible. But nowhere in the record was this made a basis for an objection. Numerous objections were interposed by counsel regarding the admissibility of the testimony, such as its
being "incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, hearsay, as being speculative"; again as being "incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial." All are classed as general objections, and none based on the specific grounds argued. As Justice CHIDSEY stated, and this Court held in Woldow v. Dever, 374 Pa. 370, 377, 97 A.2d 777: "The objection ... was not assigned as a reason for excluding the testimony when the objection was made ... The ...