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.

BRODHEAD v. BRENTWOOD ORNAMENTAL IRON COMPANY (06/27/69)

decided: June 27, 1969.

BRODHEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENTWOOD ORNAMENTAL IRON COMPANY, INC.



Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1964, No. 502, in case of Ernest Brodhead v. Brentwood Ornamental Iron Company, Inc.

COUNSEL

James P. Gill, with him Spotts, Gill, Gavin & Morrow, for appellant.

Robert E. Wayman, with him Wayman, Irvin, Trushel & McCauley, for appellee.

Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Pomeroy.

Author: Pomeroy

[ 435 Pa. Page 8]

Appellant brought this action in trespass to recover damages for personal injuries which allegedly resulted

[ 435 Pa. Page 9]

    from an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the court below denied appellant's motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law. This appeal is from the judgment entered on the verdict in favor of appellee.

The facts pertaining to the accident are not in dispute. Plaintiff, who was employed as a milk delivery man, had parked his milk truck in front of a market where he was to deliver milk. While he was in the rear part of the truck getting his load of milk ready, the milk truck was struck on the rear left corner by a steel truss being hauled on a trailer truck owned by defendant and operated by one of defendant's employees. At the time, the trailer truck was passing the milk truck from behind. Plaintiff alleged that the impact threw him forward, causing him to fall over milk cases stacked in the truck, and that as a result of this fall he suffered contusions of the head, arm and elbow and aggravation of his pre-existing prostatekidney condition and his pre-existing vascular condition. Although not at issue in this litigation, it appears from appellee's brief that the total damage to the milk truck from this accident was $20 to $25.

The court below, in refusing to grant plaintiff a new trial, stated: "It is probable that the verdict resulted from the jury's belief that plaintiff was not actually hurt in this accident, and that the ailments with which he is suffering predated the accident, and were not affected by it. This would be a conclusion that the jury was entitled to reach in the context of the evidence."

Appellant contends, however, that the evidence of his having suffered at least the contusions as a result of the accident is uncontested and must, therefore, be accepted as true. He also contends that this minor

[ 435 Pa. Page 10]

    injury, coupled with the allegedly admitted negligence of appellee's driver in striking the parked vehicle, entitled him to a verdict in ...


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.