From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hettrick v. Torrance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 13, 1940
16 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)

Opinion

October 17, 1940.

November 13, 1940.

Negligence — Evidence — Discrepancy between testimony of party and witnesses — Question for trial judge sitting without a jury.

Where, in actions of trespass, arising out of an automobile collision, tried together before a judge without a jury, there was some slight discrepancy between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of one of his witnesses, with reference to the weather conditions, it was for the trial judge to reconcile their differences, if possible, or decide which was to be accepted as correct.

Appeals, Nos. 220, 221, Oct. T., 1940, from judgments of M.C. Phila. Co., Nov. T., 1938, No. 330, in case of Alvin J. Hettrick v. John Torrance and Ellwood Barnhardt.

Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, RHODES and HIRT, JJ. Judgments affirmed.

Trespass for property damage. Before PIEKARSKI, J., without a jury.

Findings and judgment for plaintiff and against defendants. Each defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, in each case, was refusal of judgment n.o.v.

Philip. A. Campbell, with him Victor Frey, of Frey Campbell, for appellants.

Jacob Boonin, with him William A. Fieldman, for appellee.


Argued October 17, 1940.


This case against two defendants grew out of an automobile collision, and was tried before a judge without a jury. Under the evidence, the negligence of the respective defendants and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were questions of fact. While there was some slight discrepancy between the testimony of the plaintiff and that of one of his witnesses, as respects the weather conditions, it was for the trial judge to reconcile their differences, if possible, or decide which was to be accepted as correct. (McMahon v. Reading Transit Light Co., 280 Pa. 199, 202, 124 A. 330). His finding in favor of the plaintiff is as binding upon us as if it were the verdict of a jury. Moreover, it is only fair to say that the driver of defendant Torrance's car, (defendant and appellant in No. 221), called by him as a witness, testified: "It was drizzling that night, very misty, and you could not see very good."

The judgments are severally affirmed.


Summaries of

Hettrick v. Torrance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 13, 1940
16 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
Case details for

Hettrick v. Torrance

Case Details

Full title:Hettrick v. Torrance et al., Appellants

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 13, 1940

Citations

16 A.2d 152 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1940)
16 A.2d 152