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.

HARRY GRAND v. FRED DURST (10/05/84)

filed: October 5, 1984.

HARRY GRAND, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED DURST



No. 2577 Philadelphia 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Chester County at No. 288 April Term, 1979.

COUNSEL

William W. Spalding, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Roger E. Legg, West Chester, for appellee.

Wickersham, Wieand and Hoffman, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 548]

OPINION

Harry Grand appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County sustaining Fred Durst's exception to the lower court's initial decision and granting judgment in favor of Durst.

The instant litigation arose out of an automobile accident on July 28, 1977 in which a vehicle driven by appellee Durst rear-ended appellant Grand's automobile. Grand filed this suit alleging that, as a result of Durst's negligence, he sustained a strained and partially torn rotator cuff, bicepital tendonitis, and a cervical sprain, causing him severe pain and suffering in or around his arm, shoulders, neck, and back.

A non jury trial was held before the Honorable Charles B. Smith on March 17 and 18, 1982. At the close of the trial, defendant-appellee Durst moved for a directed verdict, claiming that plaintiff-appellant Grand failed to plead and prove that any of the no fault thresholds had been exceeded. The court denied appellee's motion and entered a verdict in favor of appellant in the amount of $7,000.00. Appellee filed an exception reiterating his contention that appellant failed to plead and prove that his cause of action met any of the requirements excepting it from the No Fault Act's general abolition of tort liability. Upon reconsideration

[ 333 Pa. Super. Page 549]

    of this argument, the court sustained appellee's exception and entered a verdict in favor of appellee. This appeal timely followed.

Appellant presents the following issues on appeal:

1. Did the lower court err in its application of the holding in Bromiley v. Collins, 1 D & C 3d 94 (1977) to the facts of the present case creating a disparity of interpretation and application ...


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.