Appeals, Nos. 187, and 188 and 222, March T., 1955, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1952, No. 502, and July T., 1952, No. 614, in cases of Harold F. Virden v. Edwin J. Hosler and Virginia Ruth Chillcott v. Harold F. Virden and Edwin J. Hosler. Judgments affirmed. Actions of trespass for personal injuries and property damage. Before O'BRIEN, J. Verdicts, in sum of $7,494.73 for plaintiff Chillcott and against additional defendant Hosler, and for plaintiff Virden and against defendant Hosler in the sum of $428, and judgments thereon. Defendant Hosler appealed.
James J. Burns, Jr., for appellant.
J. Lawrence McBride, with him Gilbert J. Helwig, Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote, Reif & Robinson, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for plaintiff, appellee.
Jos. P. Passafiume, for defendant, Chillcott, appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE CHIDSEY
The appeals before us are from judgments entered on jury verdicts adverse to the appellant Edwin J. Hosler following a refusal by the court below of his motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and new trial in two trespass actions arising out of the same accident, consolidated for trial.
The accident, a collision of a Chevrolet pick-up truck driven by Harold F. Virden with a Chevrolet two-door sedan driven by the appellant Edwin J. Hosler, occurred in the City of Pittsburgh at the intersection of Bausman Street with Route 51, known as Saw Mill Run Boulevard. Virden brought an action to recover damages sustained against Hosler and Miss Virginia Ruth Chillcott, a passenger in Hosler's car. Miss Chillcott filed an answer alleging that she had no control over the Hosler car which was possessed and operated solely by Hosler. Hosler filed an answer and counterclaim. Subsequently Miss Chillcott brought an action against Virden for damages sustained by her,
and Virden then brought in Hosler as an additional defendant who filed an answer and counterclaim against the original defendant. Before trial Virden discontinued his action as to Miss Chillcott and proceeded against Hosler alone. In the action brought by Virden, hereinafter referred to as the Virden case, the jury rendered a verdict in his favor and against Hosler for $428. In the action brought by Miss Chillcott, hereinafter referred to as the Chillcott case, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Virden, the original defendant, but in favor of Miss Chillcott for $7,494.73 against the additional defendant Hosler.
Saw Mill Run Boulevard at the scene of the accident runs east and west. Bausman Street intersects the Boulevard at an approximate right angle on the latter's northerly or westbound side but does not extend beyond the Boulevard on the south. Just before the actual intersection Bausman Street fans out into three traffic arteries, one a single lane curving to the right, one a single lane curving to the left, and one of two-lane width extending straight into the intersection. There are two approximately triangular shaped safety islands separating the three arteries. The surface of the road in the intersection was concrete. The accident happened at about 9 P.M. on October 5, 1951. It was raining but apparently not hard enough to substantially affect visibility. The intersection was quite well illuminated by flood lights on the outside of an A & P store and a Pittsburgh milk company store for illumination of their parking areas adjacent to the Boulevard. The Boulevard was of a width accommodating four lanes ...