Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1964, No. 3192, in case of Irene A. Flavin et al. v. Florentina Aldrich et al.
Thomas J. Reinstadtler, Jr., with him Louis Anstandig, and Egler, McGregor & Reinstadtler, for appellant.
William R. Caroselli, with him McArdle & McLaughlin, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Hannum, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J.
[ 213 Pa. Super. Page 422]
On September 21, 1963, at about 5:00 p.m. Florentina Aldrich purchased a 1958 Plymouth from Cuda's Lincoln Mercury, Inc. (Cuda) in Pittsburgh. Mrs. Aldrich testified that approximately one-half hour later she was proceeding down Warrington Ave. when her brakes failed. As a result, her automobile struck the rear of the automobile occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Flavin.
Flavins brought an action in trespass against Mrs. Aldrich and Cuda. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict against both defendants in the stipulated sum of $9750.00. Cuda has now appealed raising two contentions:
(a) That the lower court erred in allowing Police Officer Conley to testify as an automotive expert
(b) That the court erred in submitting this case to the jury, because negligence was not demonstrated.
1. Did the lower court err in allowing expert testimony?
Cuda claims that the lower court erred in allowing Police Officer Conley, who was at the scene of the accident, to testify, as an expert, that the braking system was defective.
Officer Conley was qualified as an automotive expert on the basis of the following testimony: "Q. Officer Conley, have you ...