Sascara v. United States

162 F. Supp. 246, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4095
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 13, 1958
StatusPublished

This text of 162 F. Supp. 246 (Sascara v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sascara v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 246, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4095 (W.D. Pa. 1958).

Opinion

GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

This is an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages alleged to-have been sustained in an automobile-accident. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671 et seq..

The substantive rights of the parties-are governed by the law of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff was driving his vehicle oír a through highway which intersected with a secondary road at a T intersection. The intersection was hazardous and the-view of approaching traffic on each of the highways was obstructed so that, operators of vehicles oh both highways could not see approaching traffic until in-very close proximity to the intersecting highways. The accident occurred at a point 10 to 25 feet from the intersection-on the through highway when the vehicle-of the government drove from the secondary road on to the through highway,, and struck the vehicle of the plaintiff.

The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code-provides, inter alia, that the driver of a vehicle entering a through highway shall yield the right of way to vehicles-approaching the intersection on the main< or through highway from either direc[247]*247-tion. Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, 75 P.S.Pa. § 573(c).

Under said provisions of law it it is the duty of a motor vehicle driver who approaches an intersection of a main highway to stop and to yield the right ■of way to vehicles approaching the intersection on the main highway from either direction unless he is so far in advance that, in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, he is justified in believing that he can cross the intersection ahead of the approaching vehicles without danger of a collision. Dougherty v. Merchants’ Baking Co., 313 Pa. 557, 169 A. 753.

The Motor Vehicle Code in Pennsylvania further provides that although the driver of a vehicle entering a through highway has the duty to yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either direction on such through highway, a duty exists on the part of the operator of a vehicle on a through highway to drive with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highway, nor shall said provision of law protect the driver of any vehicle on a through highway from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of such right of way. Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, art. X, Section 1014 and Amendments, 75 P.S.Pa. § 573.

Upon an evaluation of the evidence, I must conclude that the Army vehicle was operated in a negligent manner, and as a result thereof the plaintiff was placed in a sudden emergency which was not one of his own creation, which placed the plaintiff in a position of danger. Since the sudden emergency was not created through any act of omission or commission on the part of the plaintiff, and he used the best j’udgment possible under the circumstances, I must further conclude that no contributory negligence existed on the part of plaintiff. Silfies v. American Stores Co., 357 Pa. 176, 53 A.2d 610; Polonofsky v. Dobrosky, 313 Pa. 73, 169 A. 93.

The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover four separate and distinct items of damages:

A. Medical Expenses, Hospitalization and Out of Pocket Expenses:
St. Clair Memorial Hospital (from 7/10/56 to 7/28/56) $ 489.55
St. Clair Memorial Hospital (from 8/20/56 to 8/23/56) 103.25
St. Clair Memorial Hospital (x-ray) 15.00
Drs. H. G. Bregenser and Karl E. Blake 365.00
Dr. W. W. Ruehl 300.00
Dr. Robert Love Baker 25.00
Dr. J. Murl Johnston 40.00
Dr. Murray B. Ferderber 50.00
Dr. Floyd H. Bragdon 15.00
Drug Bills 6.35
Damage to or loss of personal property (excluding automobile) 110.00
Damage to automobile 1,145.00
Towing and storing charges 35.00
Total $2,699.15
B. Loss of Wages:
From July 10, 1956, to Sept. 24, 1956 650.00
C. Impairment of Earning Power:

[248]*248The plaintiff is earning more money in the employment which he is now pursuing than what he made prior to the accident, his employment being in the classification clerical or collection work in which no physical effort or extended application of the functions of his body is required. However, the plaintiff has worked as a brick layer, stone mason and machinist. Due to the injuries sustained he would be limited in his ability to follow employment of said nature. He is a man thirty-eight years of age, and was in good health prior to the accident, and had no limitations on his ability to engage in any type of employment. The medical testimony requires the conclusion that an impairment of earning power exists. Damages should be awarded for this item in the amount of $1,500.

D. Pain, Suffering and Inconvenience :

The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were such in nature that surgery was required to the nose and to the right wrist. He has difficulty with the wrist and experiences headaches and discomfort, and is limited in his ability to engage in the same activities which he experienced prior to the accident. I believe a fair amount for the pain, suffering and inconvenience, past, present and future, is $5,000.

The Court enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

Findings of Fact

1. On July 10, 1956, at approximately 1:45 o’clock P.M., a United States Army truck operated by Pvt. Donald M. Dixon, United States Army, within the scope of his official duties, was in a collision with a Buick automobile owned and operated by plaintiff in Federal, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, near the intersection of State Legislative Route A-4624 and Thom’s Run Road.

2. The Army vehicle was traveling in a generally southerly direction on Thom’s Run Road and the plaintiff’s automobile was traveling in a generally westerly direction on State Legislative Route A-4624 at the time.

3. Prior to the accident plaintiff was. proceeding uphill on Legislative Route-A-4624 at a speed between 20 and 25-miles per hour.

4. At the time of the collision plaintiff’s automobile was on his side of the-road and was between 10 and 25 feet, before the eastern line of the intersection.

5. A third automobile operated by Mr. Angelo Baronio and which was following the plaintiff’s automobile was involved in a collision with the rear of the plaintiff’s automobile after the plaintiff’s automobile and the United States. Army truck collided. Mr. Baronio is not a party to the present action.

6. Legislative Route A-4624 is a more heavily traveled road than Thom’s Run Road and is considered the main road.

7. The intersection is in the nature of a “T” intersection and Thom’s Run Road does not cross over Legislative Route A-4624.

8. A Stop Sign which was designed to stop southbound traffic ■ on Thom’s Run Road had been removed by vandals and at the time of the accident there was no Stop Sign at said intersection.

9.

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

Related

Polonofsky v. Dobrosky
169 A. 93 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Dougherty v. Merchants Baking Company
169 A. 753 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Silfies v. American Stores Co.
53 A.2d 610 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 F. Supp. 246, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sascara-v-united-states-pawd-1958.