Case Name: Wallace et al. v. Moyer et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1935-02-04
Citations: 317 Pa. 287
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 316 and 344
Parties: Wallace et al. v. Moyer et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, DREvy and Linn, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 317
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Wallace et al. v. Moyer et al., Appellants.
Argued January 8, 1935.
Before Frazer, C. J., Simpson, Kephart, Schaffer, Maxey, DREvy and Linn, JJ.
Francis Chapman, for appellants.
February 4, 1935:
John J. McDevilt, Jr., with him F. Brodhead Brennan and John J. McDevitt, 3d, fox* appellees.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam,
Plaintiffs sued to recover damages for injuries received by the minor in a collision between a car driven by the minor and a truck operated by defendants' driver in the course of the employex*'s business. The accident happened about 5:45 in the morning of March 25, 1932, at the intersection of Allegheny Avenue and Broad Street in the City of Philadelphia. The action was tried by Honorable Edwin O. Lewis without a jury, under the Act of 1874, P. L. 109. The minor plaintiff was driving west on Allegheny Avenue and defendants' truck was coming south on Broad Street. The lower court found defendants' driver guilty of negligence, absolved the minor of contributoi*y negligence, and awarded damages in favor of both the minor and his parents. Defendants appealed.
The sole question before us is whether or not the court erred in determining the minor was not guilty of contributory negligence. We have read the evidence in connection with the vai'ious exhibits and find it ample to sustain the court's conclusion exonerating the minor from negligence. As that finding has the weight and effect of a jury's verdict (Armstrong Co. v. Rearic, 315 Pa. 133), it must be received by us unless so grossly in conflict with the testimony as to warrant us in. holding the coui*t abused its discretion in reaching its conclusion. In this case we would not be justified in so holding.
Judgments affirmed.