Lombardo v. Barilla

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lombardo v. Barilla

153 A. 725, 302 Pa. 460, 1931 Pa. LEXIS 686

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 8, 1931

DocketAppeal, 153

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 153 A. 725 (Lombardo v. Barilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lombardo v. Barilla, 153 A. 725, 302 Pa. 460, 1931 Pa. LEXIS 686 (Pa. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, a guest in an automobile, sued to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the car in which he was riding with defendant-owner and one Travia collided with a tree on the Boston Post Boad near Providence, Rhode Island. The jury found for defendant, whereupon counsel for plaintiff moved for a new *461 trial, which motion was granted and defendant appealed.

The evidence showed that plaintiff, who had worked in his barber shop in the City of Philadelphia on Saturday, June 23, 1928, from 8 o’clock • a. m. to 11 o’clock p. m., started at midnight with defendant and Travia on a night journey to Boston, that at about 8 o’clock the following morning, plaintiff, who had been driving the car, relinquished the wheel to Travia and was soon fast asleep in the back seat of the car, and was sleeping at the time of the accident. Bain had fallen during the night and was falling when the accident occurred, the road was wet, “it was foggy,” and the car was being driven “pretty fast......about forty, maybe more,” in an effort to reach Boston before noon in time for dinner. We have read the evidence, but will not express an opinion upon the negligence of defendant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff, as we deem such expression unnecessary at this time in view of what we heretofore have said in regard to the court below granting and refusing to grant new trials, in Reist v. Wogan, 281 Pa. 107, 108, as follows: “We have frequently held that the granting of a new trial is within the power of the trial court, and that we will not interfere with the exercise of that inherent authority, except in cases where the record shows an unmistakable abuse of discretion: Hess v. Gusdorff, 274 Pa. 123, 124; Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530. The latter case reviews fully the authorities bearing on this question.” An examination of the record in this appeal fails to show such abuse.

The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff, a guest in an automobile, sued to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the car in which he was riding with defendant-owner and one Travia collided with a tree on the Boston Post Boad near Providence, Rhode Island. The jury found for defendant, whereupon counsel for plaintiff moved for a new *461 trial, which motion was granted and defendant appealed.

The evidence showed that plaintiff, who had worked in his barber shop in the City of Philadelphia on Saturday, June 23, 1928, from 8 o’clock • a. m. to 11 o’clock p. m., started at midnight with defendant and Travia on a night journey to Boston, that at about 8 o’clock the following morning, plaintiff, who had been driving the car, relinquished the wheel to Travia and was soon fast asleep in the back seat of the car, and was sleeping at the time of the accident. Bain had fallen during the night and was falling when the accident occurred, the road was wet, “it was foggy,” and the car was being driven “pretty fast......about forty, maybe more,” in an effort to reach Boston before noon in time for dinner. We have read the evidence, but will not express an opinion upon the negligence of defendant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff, as we deem such expression unnecessary at this time in view of what we heretofore have said in regard to the court below granting and refusing to grant new trials, in Reist v. Wogan, 281 Pa. 107, 108, as follows: “We have frequently held that the granting of a new trial is within the power of the trial court, and that we will not interfere with the exercise of that inherent authority, except in cases where the record shows an unmistakable abuse of discretion: Hess v. Gusdorff, 274 Pa. 123, 124; Class & Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530. The latter case reviews fully the authorities bearing on this question.” An examination of the record in this appeal fails to show such abuse.

The order granting a new trial is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A. 725, 302 Pa. 460, 1931 Pa. LEXIS 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lombardo-v-barilla-pa-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack