7. The court does not have jurisdiction over the claim of William Gage, infant plaintiff, brought by Winant C. Gage, his guardian ad litem, because the allegation of damages in excess of $ 3,000 was not made in 'good faith' within the meaning of the St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. case, supra, at Conclusion of Law No. 5. See Bell v. Mykytiuk, D.C.E.D.Pa.1955, 135 F.Supp. 167.
8. Defendant on the cross-claim and the counterclaim, Winant C. Gage, was not negligent and, therefore, the crossclaim of Americo F. Rizzo and Harry Angelo against Winant C. Gage and the counterclaim of Harry Angelo against Winant C. Gage and Charlotte A. Gage are both denied.
This case involves a collision of two motor vehicles passing each other after midnight on a dry, clear July night. The defendant, Harry Angelo, has filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs for recovery of damages to his truck and the defendants have filed a cross-claim against Mr. Gage (husband plaintiff) 'for all the claims asserted in this action by the plaintiffs' in the complaint against the defendants. The road was straight and neither car was travelling at an excessive speed. The trial judge rejects defendants' contention in their brief that Mr. and Mrs. Gage are not worthy of belief. They, particularly Mr. Gage, impressed the trial judge as accurate and truthful witnesses.
The important issue in this case is one of fact -- namely, was the point of impact in the east (northbound) or west (southbound) lane of Route 202. The two disinterested witnesses (police officers), who arrived on the scene within a quarter hour of the accident,
both determined that this point of impact was in the east lane from the debris on the road, the skid marks of the truck, the marks on the vehicles, the position where the cars stopped after the impact, etc.
Officer Koffel arrived on the scene before 1:20 A.M. He found debris in the east lane and skid marks from the truck's left rear wheel leading back across the white center line into the east lane, so that the body of the truck which hit plaintiffs' car had clearly extended over the white line into the east lane of the highway
(N.T. 43 ff.). He was positive that extension of the truck body back of the cab hit the plaintiffs' car, which testimony corresponded with that given by the husband plaintiff.
Officer Koffel testified that he made no report because the accident occurred on the east side of the highway in Lower Gwynedd Township (N.T. 52).
Chief Rempp of Lower Gwynedd Township testified that he corroborated the testimony of Officer Koffel, except that the truck had been moved from the place it stopped after the collision by the time he arrived (N.T. 63). He stated that the debris from the collision was on the east side of the highway (N.T. 64, 72).
And Now, February 28, 1957, It Is Ordered that:
(a) Defendants' motion to dismiss the action at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case and their motion for the entry of judgment in their favor on the complaint at the conclusion of the trial are Denied;
(b) Judgment be entered in favor of Winant C. Gage, plaintiff, against Americo F. Rizzo and Harry Angelo, defendants, in the amount of $ 2,229.19 with costs;
(c) Judgment be entered in favor of Charlotte A. Gage, plaintiff, against Americo F. Rizzo and Harry Angelo, defendants, in the amount of $ 7,929.19 with costs;
(d) Judgment be entered in favor of Americo F. Rizzo and Harry Angelo, defendants, against William Gage, an infant, by Winant C. Gage, his guardian ad litem, plaintiff, with costs.
(e) Judgment be entered on the crossclaim in favor of Winant C. Gage, defendant on cross-claim, against Americo F. Rizzo and Harry Angelo, plaintiffs on the cross-claim, with costs;
(f) Judgment be entered on the counterclaim in favor of Winant C. Gage and Charlotte A. Gage, defendants on the counterclaim, against Harry Angelo, plaintiff on the counterclaim, with costs.