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.

ANTONUCCI v. SUN OIL COMPANY (12/16/65)

decided: December 16, 1965.

ANTONUCCI, APPELLANT,
v.
SUN OIL COMPANY



Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 229, in case of Albert F. Antonucci v. Sun Oil Company et al.

COUNSEL

Henry J. Albaugh, with him Neish and Albaugh, for appellant.

Harold F. Reed, Jr., with him Robert L. Orr, and Reed, Orr & Reed, for appellee.

Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, and Hoffman, JJ. (Flood, J., absent). Opinion by Watkins, J., supporting the affirmance. Ervin, P. J., and Jacobs, J., join in this opinion. Dissenting Opinion by Wright, J. Montgomery and Hoffman, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 50]

The six judges who heard the argument of this appeal being equally divided in opinion, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by Watkins, J., supporting the affirmance:

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries by the plaintiff-appellant, Albert F. Antonucci, against the Sun Oil Company, the defendant-appellee and the Borough of Rochester, Pennsylvania, a verdict was rendered by a jury in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, Sun Oil Company, in the amount of Six Thousand ($6000) Dollars and in favor of the defendant Borough. The court below, after argument on defendant's motions for a new trial and judgment n.o.v. directed judgment to be entered n.o.v. in favor of the defendant. This appeal followed.

The evidence read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff discloses that the snow and ice was accumulated

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 51]

    on the defendant's property for two weeks or more. There is no question that notice was brought home to the defendant both actually and constructively, that both snow and ice had accumulated on its property. There was also evidence that it was slippery and that he fell on the defendant's property; and that after he fell he was sitting on ridges of ice. No description as to the length, width, heighth or depth of these ridges and ruts was given. As to the cause of his fall the testimony is as follows: "Q. What caused you to fall? A. I slipped. Q. What did you slip upon? A. The ice, the snow. Q. Anything else? A. The packed ice and snow. Q. Any particular part of ...


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.