Appeals, Nos. 37 and 38, April T., 1961, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1958, No. 256, in cases of Harry Mills v. J. Edward Garlitz, guardian ad litem for Kurt Roberts, a minor, and Samuel Whitmore v. Harry Mills et al. Judgments affirmed.
Samuel J. Goldstein, for appellants.
Robert S. Grigsby, with him Thomas F. Weis, and Pringle, Bredin & Martin, and Weis & Weis, for appellees.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 441]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
As a result of a collision between two automobiles at a right angle intersection in the City of Pittsburgh on the early morning of December 7, 1957, the two actions of trespass from which these appeals arose were filed by Harry Mills, driver of one of the cars, and by Samuel Whitmore, a passenger in the same car. The actions were brought against Kurt Roberts, a minor, who was the driver of the other car. In the Whitmore
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 442]
suit, Mills was subsequently joined as an additional defendant.
The streets forming this intersection were Fulton Street and Western Avenue, the latter being designated a through street with stop signs in place commanding traffic on Fulton Street to stop before entering it. Mills was driving south on Fulton Street and was confronted by the stop sign. Roberts was traveling east on Western Avenue. The accident occurred in the intersection in the eastbound lane for Western Avenue, by the right front of the Roberts' car striking the right rear fender of the Mills' car. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Whitmore and against both Mills and Roberts for $600.00. In the Mills' case the verdict was for the defendant, Roberts. Whitmore and Mills as plaintiff, each filed a motion for a new trial and both motions were refused by the lower court. These appeals followed.
The only question in the Whitmore appeal is the adequacy of his verdict. The only question in the Mills' case is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict for the defendant, Roberts.
Considering first the Whitmore appeal, we note that his injuries were described by Dr. Grunnagle, who saw him on the morning of the accident after he had been admitted to the Allegheny General Hospital, as follows: "He was in bed at the time ... he showed nothing of a particular note on physical examination except that he had a laceration of the scalp; he had a history of having been unconscious following the accident; and he had some abrasions on his legs. So, a diagnosis was made of cerebral concussion, abrasion of the legs, and laceration of the scalp ... He was conscious ... I don't recall [any pain] ... he was kept quiet ...