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.

GURIEL v. SCOTT (06/12/63)

June 12, 1963

GURIEL
v.
SCOTT, APPELLANTS.



Appeals, Nos. 296 and 297, April T., 1962, from orders of Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, March T., 1960, No. 108, and Dec. T., 1960, No. 147, in cases of Rose Marie Guriel et vir v. Edmond Scott, and Ethel Ricci v. Edmond Scott et al. Order in appeal No. 296 reversed; order in appeal No. 297 affirmed.

COUNSEL

W. Robert Thompson, with him Thompson and Baily, for appellant.

George B. Stegenga, with him John I. Hook, Jr., for appellees.

John F. Roney, with him Floyd A. King, for appellee.

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

Author: Flood

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 59]

OPINION BY FLOOD, J.

Following this intersection collision, Mrs. Guriel, the driver of one of the cars and Mrs. Ricci, her passenger, brought separate actions against the defendant Scott. Scott added Mrs. Guriel as an additional defendant in Mrs. Ricci's action. The jury found both drivers negligent, bringing in a verdict for the defendant in Mrs. Guriel's case and for the plaintiff against both Mr. Scott and Mrs. Guriel in Mrs. Ricci's case. Mrs. Ricci received a verdict of $300.

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 60]

The court below granted a new trial in both cases because there was no evidence of Mrs. Guriel's negligence in the case in which she was plaintiff, and because of inadequacy of damages in the case in which Mrs. Ricci was plaintiff.

1. The collision occurred near the middle of the intersection. Mrs. Guriel was proceeding at approximately twenty to twenty-five miles per hour according to her own testimony. As she was going through the intersection, she noticed the appellant's car coming from her left about two or three car lengths from her. The left rear of her car was struck and her car swerved and upset. She produced several witnesses who corroborated her. A State policeman testified that she stated to him that as she was going down the road she saw Scott coming from her left and did not figure that he was not going to stop, that she kept on going and the next thing she knew he hit her left fender and rolled her car over.

Scott's testimony was that he approached Main Street at fifteen to twenty miles per hour and turned left into Main Street and at that moment saw Mrs. Guriel's car between sixteen and twenty feet from him. He had not seen her before. He estimated that she was going forty-five miles per hour. He measured the skid marks made by his own car which indicated that at the time of the collision Mrs. Guriel's car was not in its own lane. Mrs. Guriel's passengers testified that she was in her own lane.

Since the defendant obtained the verdict, the evidence must be viewed most favorably to him on the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. So read, there was adequate evidence, if believed, of Mrs. ...


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.