7 A.2d 351 | Pa. | 1939
There are three appeals; the plaintiff's is from the award of a new trial. Defendants, by separate appeals, complain of the refusal of their motions for judgment n. o. v. *60
The defendant, Hopper, was a truck driver employed by the defendant, Uhrik. Hopper's wife was killed while accompanying him on Uhrik's truck. She had a son, David, at the time she married Hopper, and, on that surviving son's behalf, this suit was brought to recover for her death which, it was alleged, resulted from defendants' negligence. The suit was brought in the name of the minor by his next friend and grandfather, Charles Bingler, and by his grandparents, in their own right. At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff disclaimed any right in the grandparents and had the record amended accordingly. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
The learned trial judge, in his opinion granting the new trial, stated that he had omitted to charge "upon the present worth to the plaintiff of the future earnings of his mother which she would have contributed to his maintenance. Moreover, the verdict was greatly excessive. . . ." In such circumstances, the verdict could not be sustained, and the order granting the new trial must be affirmed.
The defendant-appellants rely on two grounds: first, that under the Acts1 of 1851 and 1855, a child may not sue if one parent survives and that, in any event, a child may not sue its parent in tort. We considered those Acts in the opinion just filed in Minkin v. Minkin,
Hopper, called for cross-examination, testified that the accident occurred on a descending grade near Altoona; that a Greyhound Bus passed him and then reduced its speed; he thought his truck was "creeping up" on the bus and, to avoid colliding with it, put on brakes; they did not hold the truck whereupon he went into high gear and dashed around the Greyhound Bus on a curve where he could not see beyond 1002 feet ahead and crashed into a truck that was slowly approaching up the mountain and which he first saw about 40 feet in front of him. That evidence presents a case for the jury: compare Casey v.Siciliano,
In each of the appeals the action complained of is affirmed.