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.

JAMISON v. DI NARDO

June 12, 1961

Howard JAMISON, Administrator of the Estate of Julius Colosimo, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
DI NARDO, INC., a Corporation, Defendant, v. EQUITABLE GAS COMPANY, Third-party Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

This is an action to recover damages under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes (12 P.S. § 1601 et seq., 20 P.S. § 320.601 et seq.) arising out of an accident when decedent was instantly killed as a result of gas asphyxiation.

Verdicts were returned in favor of Howard Jamison, Administrator of the Estate of Julius Colosimo, deceased, and against Di Nardo, Inc., defendant, under the Pennsylvania Survival Statute in the amount of $ 10,000 and under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Statute in the amount of $ 75,000. Verdict was also returned in favor of Equitable Gas Company, Third-party Defendant and against Di Nardo, Inc., Third-party Plaintiff.

 The matter before this Court is two-fold:

 1. Motion of defendant, Di Nardo, Inc., for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.

 2. A two-pronged motion for new trial.

 a. Motion for new trial in favor of defendant, Di Nardo, Inc., both as to plaintiff and third-party defendant, and in the event of the court's failure to grant motion for new trial as to plaintiff.

 b. Motion for new trial in favor of defendant, Di Nardo, Inc., as to third-party defendant.

 In support of its motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, defendant Di Nardo, Inc., presents the following contentions:

 (1) Di Nardo's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident.

 (2) Admitting Di Nardo's negligence in the first instance, Di Nardo's negligence ceased once it had notified Equitable of the ruptured gas line.

 In support of its motion for new trial, defendant Di Nardo presents the following contentions:

 (1) The Court erred in charging on the sudden emergency doctrine.

 (2) The Court refused side-bar conferences in the presence of the jury and excused the jury to hear legal arguments or any ...


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.