Summary
In Pantazis, supra, the "indisputable physical facts" clearly warranted an inference that the defendant was inattentive to his duty of operation of the car.
Summary of this case from Lescznski v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Opinion
April 13, 1950.
May 22, 1950.
Negligence — Evidence — Sufficiency.
In this case it was Held that the evidence sustained the jury's finding that defendant was negligent in operating his automobile.
Before DREW, C. J., STERN, STEARNE, JONES and BELL, JJ.
Appeal, No. 133, Jan. T., 1950, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Feb. T., 1947, No. 97, in case of Frances Pantazis, Individually and as Admrx., Estate of James Pantazis v. Edward Follweiler. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for wrongful death. Before BARTHOLD, P. J.
Nonsuit entered as to individual plaintiff; verdict for plaintiff administratrix in the sum of $7,280 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Daniel L. McCarthy, for appellant.
A. Albert Gross, with him Francis H. S. Ede and Gross McGiffert, for appellee.
The only question on this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to warrant submission of the case to the jury. Contributory negligence is in no way involved. The plaintiff's decedent died, without regaining consciousness, from injuries received when struck by the defendant's automobile while crossing the highway in front of his home at night. A presumption that the deceased was exercising due care at the time of the accident therefore attended the plaintiff's case, nothing otherwise having been shown therein to impair the presumption.
The evidence amply justified the jury's verdict. The indisputable physical facts in the case warranted an inference that the defendant was inattentive to his duty as the driver of the automobile that struck the decedent and that his inattention was the proximate cause of the accident. Nothing is to be gained by reiterating what Judge BARTHOLD so ably demonstrated in such regard in the opinion for the learned court en banc upon refusing the defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v.
Judgment affirmed.