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.

SCHWARTZ v. FELDMAN. (11/16/61)

November 16, 1961

SCHWARTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
FELDMAN.



Appeal, No. 32, Oct. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1956, No. 3006, in case of Sophie Schwartz v. Alex Feldman. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

David H. Kubert, with him Norman Shigon, for appellant.

Howard M. Girsh, with him Manuel Steinberg, for appellee.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., and Flood, J., absent).

Author: Woodside

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 493]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a trespass action from a judgment entered in her favor after the court below refused her motion for a new trial.

The action grew out of an automobile accident on the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge on June 9, 1956. The defendant, Alex Feldman, asked the plaintiff, Sophie Schwartz, a widow, to take a ride with him to New Jersey. While crossing the bridge the car in front of Feldman stopped suddenly, and his car ran into it. In this appeal we are concerned only with the damages for the plaintiff's personal injuries. When the cars collided the plaintiff was thrown against the dashboard and injured her teeth and nose and suffered a cut lip. She also received a bump on the head and injured her neck and back. She was taken to the hospital, but was discharged two hours later.

A few days after the accident she visited a physician who thereafter treated her 42 times, mostly for her

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 494]

    neck and back injuries, and finally discharged her on August 1, 1957. In the meantime (June 1957), she was again injured in an automobile accident while riding in a car with Feldman. Before trial she was injured in a third motor vehicle accident. In all three, she suffered head injuries.

At the time of the trial, the plaintiff had a serious hearing deficiency requiring her to use a hearing aid. The most important factual question remaining in this case is whether there was any casual connection between the first accident and the hearing deficiency.

The jury returned a verdict of $1174 in favor of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff's loss of hearing was caused by the first accident, the verdict is inadequate; if it was not, the verdict is adequate. The plaintiff offered evidence of special damages amounting to $724.50. Of this amount, all except $174 was connected with the loss of hearing. It would appear from the amount of the verdict that the jury rejected the claim ...


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.