Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Oct. T., 1969, No. 104, in re estate of George M. Flickinger, II, by George M. Flickinger, administrator, and George M. Flickinger and Veney R. Flickinger, in their own right, v. Ronald A. Ritsky and Marona Construction Company.
Richard L. Campbell, with him John R. Miller, and Miller, Kistler, Lee and Campbell, for appellants.
Richard H. Wix, with him Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaulding and Cercone, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.
[ 219 Pa. Super. Page 16]
Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
This case arose out of a collision between an automobile and a motorcycle in which the motorcyclist died. Defendant-appellee Ritsky was driving his car out of a parking lot to turn onto the highway. Before entering the main highway, he stopped his vehicle to observe oncoming traffic. He testified that in one direction his view was obscured by a high pile of dirt that had been left while the defendant Marona Construction Company (Marona) was working on a sewer project. After looking in both directions, appellee pulled out, but was surprised to a see a motorcycle a few feet away. The motorcyclist could not avoid sideswiping Ritsky, which caused him to careen into the path of another car. He died shortly thereafter from injuries suffered in this collision.
The cyclist's parents brought an action in trespass under the Wrongful Death and Survival Statute naming both Ritsky and Marona as defendants. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the court refused Marona's motion for a non-suit and submitted the question of negligence to the jury. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against both defendants in the amount of $18,500. Defendant Marona then filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. alleging that its negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. After receiving briefs and argument, the court granted this motion. From the order of the court holding defendant Ritsky alone liable for damages, the plaintiff has appealed.
The principles of law involved in the instant case were recently reiterated and clarified by our Supreme Court in White v. ...