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.

CHADWICK v. POPADICK. (04/18/60)

April 18, 1960

CHADWICK, APPELLANT,
v.
POPADICK.



Appeals, Nos. 79, 80 and 81, Jan. T., 1960, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Cameron County, Oct. T., 1955, Nos. 6 and 48, in cases of Harold Chadwick v. Michael Popadick et al.; Frank Grimone, Jr., a minor by Frank Grimone, his guardian v. Michael Popadick et al.; and Frank Grimone v. Same. Judgments reversed.

COUNSEL

Joseph J. Malizia, for appellants.

John D. Gresimer, for appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.

Author: Musmanno

[ 399 Pa. Page 89]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO.

The litigation involved in this appeal was before us in 390 Pa. 511, so that it is unnecessary to again narrate the facts which brought about the accident underlying the legal controversies involved. It is enough to say that three cars, being operated respectively, by Michael

[ 399 Pa. Page 90]

Popadick, Harold Chadwick, and Francis Simones, participated in the accident. The cars were traveling Indian file. Popadick, heading the file, suddenly stopped; Chadwick, immediately following, then stopped; and Simones, who was following Chadwick, ploughed into Chadwick, and Chadwick struck Popadick with the result that Chadwick left the road and plunged over an embankment.

Chadwick sued Popadick and Simones; Simones sued Chadwick; and Frank Grimone, who was a passenger in Chadwick's car, sued Popadick, Simones and Chadwick.

At the first trial, the court directed a verdict in favor of Popadick and we reversed, ordering a new trial. At the second trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant Popadick and against the defendant Simones, with whom the plaintiffs had already made settlement.

The plaintiffs have now asked for another trial.

It is Chadwick's contention that the accident would never have occurred if Popadick had not suddenly stopped in his tracks without giving the following cars adequate warning. Popadick, on the other hand, maintains that he had to stop because two deer were in the roadway ahead of him and he thus claims immunity from ...


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.