Appeals, No. 96 and 97, April T., 1960, from judgment of County Court of Allegheny County, No. A781 of 1959, in case of Clarence K. Griffith v. Mount Lebanon Heating and Roofing Company et al. Judgment affirmed.
Howard V. Heck, for appellants.
Donald C. Riedel, with him Beck, McGinnis and Jarris, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 406]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
This is an action in trespass to recover the cost of repairs to plaintiff-appellee's automobile resulting from a collision with defendant-appellant company's truck then being driven by the individual defendant on defendant-appellant company's business.
The collision occurred at the intersection of Bower Hill Road and Painter's Run Road in Allegheny County on February 21, 1959, at approximately 10:30 a.m. The intersection of these two roads forms what is
[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 407]
commonly known as a "T" intersection. The weather was clear and the roads were dry.
Plaintiff was traveling in a southerly direction on Bower Hill Road across the bar of the "T" at a speed of 15 miles per hour as he approached the intersection, with his turn signals activated, indicating his intention to turn left into Painter's Run Road, that is, in an easterly direction down the leg of the "T". Plaintiff negotiated the left turn into Painter's Run Road, except for six or eight inches of his automobile still being on Bower Hill Road, when the left front of the defendant's truck and the right front of the plaintiff's automobile collided. The defendant's truck left skid marks 20 to 30 feet in length on Bower Hill Road.
Plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant truck owner and the defendant driver, an employee of the truck owner, in a hearing before an alderman of the City of Pittsburgh. Defendants appealed to the County Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; and, after a non-jury hearing, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. Defendants filed exceptions to the Court's decision; and, after oral argument before the court en banc, defendant's exceptions were dismissed, from which action this appeal was taken.
Defendants' exceptions to the decision of the court below are based upon the contention that there was no evidence of negligence upon which to base legal liability in the defendants and that in any event ...