William J. Drenning v. John H. Williams v. Lawrence F. Andresen, Iii, Third-Party

Third Circuit

William J. Drenning v. John H. Williams v. Lawrence F. Andresen, Iii, Third-Party

480 F.2d 1220

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1973

Docket72-1813

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 480 F.2d 1220 (William J. Drenning v. John H. Williams v. Lawrence F. Andresen, Iii, Third-Party) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William J. Drenning v. John H. Williams v. Lawrence F. Andresen, Iii, Third-Party, 480 F.2d 1220 (3d Cir. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the July 5, 1972, order entering judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant truck driver in his claim for contribution from the third-party defendant automobile driver. The plaintiffs, passengers in the automobile, were injured when it collided with the defendant’s disabled flatbed trailer which was blocking the westbound lane of the highway. According to the automobile driver’s own testimony (95a-100a, 120a-123a), the truck was some 70-80 feet beyond a dip in the road; he first saw the truck in his headlights immediately upon coming out of the dip in the road (over the crest of the hill forming the western end of such dip), when he was about 60-65 feet from it; 1 and because of his speed, about 50 to 55 miles per hour, he was unable to stop in time. As the district court opinion makes clear, driving at this speed under these circumstances violated Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 75, § 1002(a), 2 and, under the admitted facts, was negligence as a matter of law. See Drenning v. Williams, 344 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Pa. 1972), and cases cited therein. 3

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. The third-party defendant conceded that he saw the trailer as soon as he came over the crest of the dip without interference from darkness or any other factor.

2

. 75 P.S. § 1002(a) provides that “no person shall drive any vehicle, upon a highway . . . at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.”

3

. The discussion of the facts and cases in this district court opinion makes it unnecessary for us to elaborate upon them here.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges the July 5, 1972, order entering judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant truck driver in his claim for contribution from the third-party defendant automobile driver. The plaintiffs, passengers in the automobile, were injured when it collided with the defendant’s disabled flatbed trailer which was blocking the westbound lane of the highway. According to the automobile driver’s own testimony (95a-100a, 120a-123a), the truck was some 70-80 feet beyond a dip in the road; he first saw the truck in his headlights immediately upon coming out of the dip in the road (over the crest of the hill forming the western end of such dip), when he was about 60-65 feet from it; 1 and because of his speed, about 50 to 55 miles per hour, he was unable to stop in time. As the district court opinion makes clear, driving at this speed under these circumstances violated Pa.Stat.Ann. tit. 75, § 1002(a), 2 and, under the admitted facts, was negligence as a matter of law. See Drenning v. Williams, 344 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Pa. 1972), and cases cited therein. 3

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

1

. The third-party defendant conceded that he saw the trailer as soon as he came over the crest of the dip without interference from darkness or any other factor.

2

. 75 P.S. § 1002(a) provides that “no person shall drive any vehicle, upon a highway . . . at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.”

3

. The discussion of the facts and cases in this district court opinion makes it unnecessary for us to elaborate upon them here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F.2d 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-j-drenning-v-john-h-williams-v-lawrence-f-andresen-iii-ca3-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack