Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-4102COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUE3HRLAND Mag Dist NO: 09-3-04 DJ Name: Ho~q ^dd~ss: 104 S. SPOHTING HILT. P,D. MECHANICSBD'RG, PA T.,epho,.:{717) 761-8230 17050 T.INDA F. ZARR 301 HIGH STREET P.O. BOX 251 SUMMERDALE, PA 17093 7L~ o .~ . ,-11o2 ~ NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLA, NTIF F/J U DGM E¢/~ ~EI~O(~AsE F'Z,a~,.E, LINDA F NAMEandADDRESS 30l HIGH STREET P.O. BOX 251 L~Ot~t~t~O~LE, mA 17093 VS, DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT C~41~ laTn(~[:~t~ o $ ESs 38 AUTOMNDRIVE DILLSB~TRG, PA 17019 L Docket NO.: CV- 0000011 - 03 Date Filed: 1/13/03 T~S IS'rD NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judtgment: E~] Judgment was entered for: (Name) L--~ Judgment was entered against: (Name) FOR ~T.ATNTIFF ~.A~R, T.T~-I~A F O ~ ~RTRN, MTC~A~T. in the amount of $ 1,404.~2 on: (Date of Judgment) 4lng/n3 ~-~ Defendants are jointly and severally liable. [] Damages will be assessed on: E~ This case dismissed without prejudice. ~-~ Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $ (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment $ 1,338.02 Judgment Costs $ 66.50 Interest on Judgment $ o 00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 1,404.52 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUiDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEeTOR PAYS IN FULL, SE'I-FLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. I certify th[at this is a true anti correct c~,¥~or tl~ record ct me p,%c~edings containing the judgment. L~ ~-O~"~ Date'~"""~- V ~'~ ,District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January,~2004 . SEAL AOPC 31 5-03 LINDA F. ZARR, Plaintiff MICHAEL O'BRIEN, Defendant DISTRICT COURT 09-3-04 CV-00011-03 FACTS FROM TRIAL Plaintiff owns a 1989 Acura Integra LS that had 180,000 plus miles on it on 21 November 2002. At approximately 3:30 p.m. that day the car was being driven by an acquaintance of Plaintiff returning from an eye doctor appointment. The doctor's office is located along the Carlisle Pike (Pike) but the driver chose to use a side street egress to the Pike rather than the office parking lot. The driver turned right onto the Pike and following another car attempted to proceed through the right turn lane onto South Sporting Hill Road. The driver had to avoid a van that had braked abruptly in the travel lane. As driver passed the van Defendant's vehicle, a 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis, came from the left-hand turn lane of the Pike perpendicular to the travel of the Integra. Impact to the Integra front end caused damages valued totaling $1338.02. Impact to the Marquis back passenger door caused an unreported amount of damage. The Integra driver indicates she turned from Sunset Circle onto the Pike. At that intersection there is a known sign directing "Keep Off Shoulder" but that sign was not visible to the driver this day. The road is marked by a white line that breaks at the restaurant entrance Defendant attempted to enter. Yellow hatch marks are next to the shoulder sign between the white line and curb for approximately !0 feet from Sunset Circle along the Pike. The driver relates she was following a car along this area to make a right hand turn from the right hand turn lane, but denies being fully on the shoulder of this road surface. Defendant indicates that he made a left from S. Sporting Hill Road to make another left into the restaurants second entrance along the Pike. Defendant while in the center turn lane signaling a left turn was motioned to proceed by another driver who stopped allowing Defendant egress into the parking lot entrance. Defendant proceeded through and did not see the Integra until it was on top of him. Plaintiff argues that the negligence of the driver in causing the accident limits some if not all of his liability. DISCUSSION The burden in every civil case is on Plaintiff to show that a duty owed has been breached, which has directly resulted in measurable damages. The general legal duty in traffic case is found in the Vehicle Code. Specifically, section 3334 provides that turning movement must wait until it "can be made with reasonable safety." The Vehicle Code does not allow anyone the right-of-way. It only states who must yield. The driver of vehicle intending to turn left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, which is so close as to constitute a traffic hazard. 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3322. In applying the facts to the law, Defendant clearly violated the duties under the Vehicle Code by making a Jeft turn on major roadway during the afternoon rush hour. This is making a turn at a time it could not be made safely and failing to yield the right-of-way. The defendant argues that this breach is overtaken by the wrongdoing of the driver. The argument for requiring contribution among joint tort feasers has merit, however, Plaintiff was not the driver of the vehicle. Plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle and is to be made whole unless her negligence materially contributed to the sustaining of injuries. The evidence was that the Integra was loaned to the driver and not that there was any ownership interest on the part of the driver. Thus, this Plaintiff cannot be found to be contributorily negligent.~ Judgment is in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1338.02 plus costs of this action. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party. By 8 APR 03 Date Thoma~A. ~Placey D.J. ~ It is noted that the ddver may be held accountable for her negligence in violating duties of the Vehicle Code. The driver is bound by the same duties in turning and further is prohibited from passing on the right when doing so on the shoulder of a multi lane highway. It would be found that the driver was NOT on a clearly designated shoulder at the time of the impact. The markings on the roadway intend to identify this shoulder with while lines, signs and yellow hatch marks. This is a clear delineation of the roadway in marked contrast to standard shoulder indications. The driver was well beyond the yellow hatch marks and within what had become the right turning lane. It must further be noted that the true but not legal fault lies within the well intentioned but myopic van driver who stopped short to allow and s!gnaling Defendant to move into the path of oncoming traffic.