Tucci v. Long Transportation Co.

Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas

Tucci v. Long Transportation Co.

46 Pa. D. & C.2d 566, 1969 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 214

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County

DecidedJanuary 15, 1969

Docketno. 757

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Pa. D. & C.2d 566 (Tucci v. Long Transportation Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucci v. Long Transportation Co., 46 Pa. D. & C.2d 566, 1969 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 214 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, P. J.,

The question presented by the instant case is: as between lessor and [567]*567lessee of a trailer (truck), who shall bear the risk of loss where the leased trailer is stolen while in the possession of lessee?

Plaintiff lessor brought an action in trespass against defendant lessee to recover damages allegedly sustained by reason of theft, by parties unknown, of the leased trailer, the trailer haying been in the possession of defendant lessee at the time of the theft. Lessee pleaded provisions of the lease agreement between the parties as an affirmative defense and particularly those provisions whereby plaintiff lessor was required to save harmless the lessee from such losses by theft under all circumstances. The case proceeded to trial by jury, but at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendant’s motion for a compulsory nonsuit was sustained by the trial judge and a nonsuit entered against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to take off the nonsuit entered.

We have reviewed the record in this case and find that plaintiff offered no evidence whatever to impair the validity of the lease agreement. Where, as here, the parties have agreed between themselves that the risk of loss is to be borne by lessor and there are no overriding circumstances, we cannot shift the risk of loss to lessee. We also note that plaintiff did not pursue his posttrial motion by oral or written argument and presumably •has abandoned the same. After carefully reviewing the evidence in this case, we are of the opinion that the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Order

And now, to wit, January 15, 1969, after due and careful consideration of plaintiff’s motion to take off compulsory nonsuit, and the entire record, it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff’s motion to take off compulsory nonsuit shall be and hereby is refused and the judgment of nonsuit entered at the above captioned case shall be and hereby is affirmed.

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

Weiss, P. J.,

The question presented by the instant case is: as between lessor and [567]*567lessee of a trailer (truck), who shall bear the risk of loss where the leased trailer is stolen while in the possession of lessee?

Plaintiff lessor brought an action in trespass against defendant lessee to recover damages allegedly sustained by reason of theft, by parties unknown, of the leased trailer, the trailer haying been in the possession of defendant lessee at the time of the theft. Lessee pleaded provisions of the lease agreement between the parties as an affirmative defense and particularly those provisions whereby plaintiff lessor was required to save harmless the lessee from such losses by theft under all circumstances. The case proceeded to trial by jury, but at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendant’s motion for a compulsory nonsuit was sustained by the trial judge and a nonsuit entered against plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to take off the nonsuit entered.

We have reviewed the record in this case and find that plaintiff offered no evidence whatever to impair the validity of the lease agreement. Where, as here, the parties have agreed between themselves that the risk of loss is to be borne by lessor and there are no overriding circumstances, we cannot shift the risk of loss to lessee. We also note that plaintiff did not pursue his posttrial motion by oral or written argument and presumably •has abandoned the same. After carefully reviewing the evidence in this case, we are of the opinion that the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Order

And now, to wit, January 15, 1969, after due and careful consideration of plaintiff’s motion to take off compulsory nonsuit, and the entire record, it is now ordered, adjudged and decreed that plaintiff’s motion to take off compulsory nonsuit shall be and hereby is refused and the judgment of nonsuit entered at the above captioned case shall be and hereby is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Pa. D. & C.2d 566, 1969 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucci-v-long-transportation-co-pactcomplwestmo-1969.