Appeal from judgment of County Court of Philadelphia, June T., 1964, No. 9771-A, in case of Bernice Kessler v. James C. Matlack et al.
Maurice S. Levy, for appellant.
John S. Bolger, for appellees.
Henry J. Lotto, for appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Montgomery, J. Ervin, P. J., and Hoffman, J., join in this dissenting opinion.
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 451]
Dissenting Opinion by Montgomery, J.:
The basis for this action of trespass was an automobile accident involving three cars, all traveling in the same direction. The first one was operated by appellant Kessler, the second by Mr. Matlack and the third by Leibowitz. The accident was described by the witnesses as follows.
Bernice Kessler testified she was on the right side of a two-lane highway, traveling about 20 miles per hour when the Matlack car hit the rear of her car. Mr. Matlack testified the Kessler car was to his left, when she cut in front of him and stopped some three car lengths ahead; that he was struck in the rear by the Leibowitz car and pushed into the rear of the Kessler car. Leibowitz testified he observed the Kessler and Matlack cars continually, that the Kessler car was at all times on her right, and she did not stop; that Matlack struck Kessler in the rear, that he tried to swerve to the left but could not avoid hitting the side of the Matlack Volkswagen bus with his right fender.
Mrs. Kessler entered this action against the Matlacks, who in turn brought in Leibowitz as an additional defendant. Matlacks entered another action against Kessler and Leibowitz in which Mr. Matlack was subsequently brought in as an additional defendant. The two actions were consolidated for trial purposes with the following results: -- In the action brought by Kessler ...