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.

BEECHWOODS FLYING SERVICE INC. v. AL HAMILTON CONTRACTING CORPORATION (08/05/83)

filed: August 5, 1983.

BEECHWOODS FLYING SERVICE INC., A CORPORATION, AND HEPBURNIA COAL SALES CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
AL HAMILTON CONTRACTING CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, AND LARRY WILSONCROFT, AN INDIVIDUAL



No. 1044 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, No. 79-110-CD.

COUNSEL

William A. Pietragallo, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

William C. Kriner, Clearfield, for Hamilton, appellee.

Richard A. Bell, Clearfield, for Wilsoncroft, appellee.

Cavanaugh, Rowley and Montgomery, JJ. Cavanaugh, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Rowley

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 516]

This is an appeal from an order denying appellants' post-trial motions for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.

On September 28, 1977, a helicopter, owned by Hepburnia Coal Sales Corporation (Hepburnia) and leased to its subsidiary, Beechwoods Flying Service, Inc. (Beechwoods), [hereinafter appellants], and a truck operated by Appellee Larry Wilsoncroft (Wilsoncroft), an employee of Al Hamilton Contracting Corporation (Hamilton), collided. The helicopter had been leased by Hamilton from Beechwoods. Included in the fallout from the September 28, 1977 collision was the law suit that forms the foundation for this appeal.

In their suit against Hamilton and Wilsoncroft, the appellants sought to recover the cost of repairs, as well as damages for the loss of use and the diminution in market

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 517]

    value of the damaged helicopter. The repairs took six months to complete and it was stipulated that their cost was $85,000.00. Trial was held before the court and a jury, which returned a verdict finding Hamilton negligent and awarding appellants damages in the amount of $12,076.00 for "down time," i.e., loss of use. No damages were awarded for the cost of repairs or for the diminution in market value. Wilsoncroft was adjudged not to be negligent. Appellants' subsequent motion for a new trial or judgment n.o.v. was denied. This appeal followed. We affirm.

On appeal, the issues, as stated by appellants, are:

1. Is the bailor entitled to a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. where the evidence has established the existence of a bailment agreement, delivery of the bailed property in good condition, return of the bailed property in a damaged condition and the bailee offered no evidence to show exercise of reasonable care for the bailed property?

2. Are appellants entitled to a new trial because the trial court's instructions to the jury were inadequate, incorrect and inconsistent with Pennsylvania law on bailment?

3. Are appellants entitled to a new trial because the trial court admitted evidence concerning insurance coverage and payment of the appellants' damages by its insurer?

4. Are appellants entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury as to the law of negligence as applied to one appellee and the imputation of negligence from one appellee to another?

5. Are appellants entitled to a new trial where the trial court failed to reinstruct the jury so that the jury might correct its unclear and ...


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.