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.

STUBLER v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.R. CO.

January 7, 1965

Joseph A. STUBLER and Patricia Stubler, his wife
v.
The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, v. Joseph A. STUBLER



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

This is a diversity Pennsylvania negligence action tried by judge and jury with awards returned in favor of the husband and wife plaintiffs. *fn1"

The matters before the Court relate to a Motion for Judgment N.O.V. and/or a Motion for New Trial as to each of the verdicts.

 An accident occurred between a train of the defendant and a motor vehicle operated by the husband-plaintiff with his wife as a guest, where a single track of the railroad intersected a Pennsylvania highway in a rural community on a wintry, cold, snowy, icy night.

 After full, thorough, complete, exhaustive and careful consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral argument of counsel, I believe each of said Motions should be denied.

 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V.

 The Court is not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury's verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or because the Court believes another result more reasonable. Jamison v. Di Nardo, Inc., 195 F.Supp. 99 (W.D.Pa.1961); aff'd 302 F.2d 27 (3rd Cir. 1962).

 I have no reservation in reaching the conclusion that under all the evidence and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the accident.

 As to the contributory negligence of Joseph Stubler, *fn2" there is a presumption of due care which exists because of the undisputed fact that he has amnesia and no recollection exists of the facts and circumstances at the time immediately before or at the time of the accident. Klink v. Harrison, 332 F.2d 219 (3rd Cir. 1964).

 Evidence also exists to support the conclusion that he was confronted with a sudden emergency which was not due to his own act of omission and/or commission, and that reasonable care and caution was applied under all the circumstances to bring his vehicle to a stop in view of the position where the crossbar was located, to wit, the opposite side of the track in the direction from which he was approaching the crossing. *fn3"

 The Motion for Judgment N.O.V. is, in each instance, denied.

 In the first five grounds set forth in its Motion for New Trial, defendant claims that the verdicts were against the evidence, the weight of the evidence, the law, the charge of the Court, and were excessive. None of these grounds is valid. Substantial evidence exists to support the verdicts in light of the serious injuries suffered by each of the plaintiffs.

 The sixth and seventh grounds deal with the admission and effect of evidence relating to other accidents at the crossing and the installation of a flashing signal subsequent to the accident.

 Defendant admits in its brief that evidence of other accidents at the crossing *fn4" and of the subsequent installation of a flashing signal *fn5" was admissible and also admits that the Court properly and 'emphatically' charged the jury that this evidence was not to be taken to prove antecedent negligence. However, defendant ...


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.