incontrovertible physical facts rule in Pennsylvania

1949The facts relied upon by the appellant plainly lack details essential to any application of the incontrovertible physical facts rule: cf. Cunningham v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 352 Pa. 571, 575 , 43 A. 2d *291 825.

1946Co., 352 Pa. 571 , 43 A. 2d 825 , in reversing the entry of judgment n. o. v. in the court below where the basis for the entry of the judgment was the application of the doctrine of incontrovertible physical facts, the Supreme Court said, p. 575: “We have frequently decided that the doctrine of incontrovertible physical facts is inapplicable when dependent upon estimates of distances and the speed of moving objects, [citing cases.]” The only reason pressed in support of the new trial motion is that of “after-discovered” evidence.

1972In McGavern v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 378 Pa. 13 , 105 A. 2d 342 (1954), the incontrovertible physical facts rule was not applicable because plaintiff gave evidence that visibility was blocked until the point of impact.

1972In McGavern v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 378 Pa. 13 , 105 A. 2d 342 (1954), the incontrovertible physical facts rule was not applicable because plaintiff gave evidence that visibility was blocked until the point of impact.

1950As was said in MacDonald v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 348 Pa. 558, 564 , 36 A. 2d 492 , — “To lay down a rule that whenever a trial court is convinced that the proofs on either side of a civil action in which there are issues of fact triable by a jury are so conclusive that the court can declare as a matter of law that the verdict must be for the party offering such proofs, would be to introduce a radical innovation in trial procedure in this Commonwealth.

1950As was said in MacDonald v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 348 Pa. 558, 564 , 36 A. 2d 492 , — “To lay down a rule that whenever a trial court is convinced that the proofs on either side of a civil action in which there are issues of fact triable by a jury are so conclusive that the court can declare as a matter of law that the verdict must be for the party offering such proofs, would be to introduce a radical innovation in trial procedure in this Commonwealth.

2022According to Appellant, “[u]nder the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine, Officer Benick’s testimony should have been disregarded.” Id. at 12 .

1975We have examined 17 cases in which the Appellate Courts of this Commonwealth have dealt with the rule during the past ten years, and in every one the rule has been held inapplicable to the facts.” Ropele v. Stewart, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 522, 529 , 137 A. 2d 895 (1958).

1975We have examined 17 cases in which the Appellate Courts of this Commonwealth have dealt with the rule during the past ten years, and in every one the rule has been held inapplicable to the facts.” Ropele v. Stewart, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 522, 529 , 137 A. 2d 895 (1958).

1960“Clearly this evidence cannot be brought within the incontrovertible physical facts rule, a rule which has application only in the clearest of cases . . . and never where, as here, there are variables and doubtful estimates, . . . and where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply the evidence to the issue.” (Mautino v. Piercedale, 338 Pa. 435, 442 ) “‘If the defendant’s negligence concurred with some other event (other than the plaintiff’s fault) to produce the plaintiff’s injury, so that it clearly appears that but for such negligence the injury would not have happened, and bot

1960“Clearly this evidence cannot be brought within the incontrovertible physical facts rule, a rule which has application only in the clearest of cases . . . and never where, as here, there are variables and doubtful estimates, . . . and where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply the evidence to the issue.” (Mautino v. Piercedale, 338 Pa. 435, 442 ) “‘If the defendant’s negligence concurred with some other event (other than the plaintiff’s fault) to produce the plaintiff’s injury, so that it clearly appears that but for such negligence the injury would not have happened, and bot

1960He argues that the instant case “comes within the incontrovertible physical facts rule”, citing Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 256 , 11 A. 2d 665 , and Kennedy v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 333 Pa. 406 , 3 A. 2d 395 .

1960He argues that the instant case “comes within the incontrovertible physical facts rule”, citing Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 256 , 11 A. 2d 665 , and Kennedy v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 333 Pa. 406 , 3 A. 2d 395 .

1960He argues that the instant case “comes within the incontrovertible physical facts rule”, citing Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 256 , 11 A. 2d 665 , and Kennedy v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 333 Pa. 406 , 3 A. 2d 395 .

1960He argues that the instant case “comes within the incontrovertible physical facts rule”, citing Pollock v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 139 Pa. Superior Ct. 256 , 11 A. 2d 665 , and Kennedy v. Southern Pennsylvania Traction Co., 333 Pa. 406 , 3 A. 2d 395 .

1956Ferguson v. Charis, 314 Pa. 164 .

1954The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Pastore v. Suglia, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 339 , 101 A. 2d In Greene v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. 389 , 124 A. 134 , the trial court entered a non-suit on the ground, that plaintiff, who had stepped in a hole in the sidewalk, was contributorily negligent.

1954The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Pastore v. Suglia, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 339 , 101 A. 2d In Greene v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. 389 , 124 A. 134 , the trial court entered a non-suit on the ground, that plaintiff, who had stepped in a hole in the sidewalk, was contributorily negligent.

1954But such conclusion rested upon oral testimony which , the jury . could accept or reject. *348 Appellant admits that under the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine no fact based on oral testimony is incontrovertible until it receives the imprimatur of a jury’s acceptance (Majewski et al v. Lempka et al., 321 Pa. 369 , 183 A. 777 ; Wermeling v. Shattuck et al., 366 Pa. 23 , 76 A. 2d 406 ), but contends that the doctrine is usually applied when the incontrovertible physical facts are established as part of the evidence adduced by a defendant, and that here such facts were established by the

1954But such conclusion rested upon oral testimony which , the jury . could accept or reject. *348 Appellant admits that under the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine no fact based on oral testimony is incontrovertible until it receives the imprimatur of a jury’s acceptance (Majewski et al v. Lempka et al., 321 Pa. 369 , 183 A. 777 ; Wermeling v. Shattuck et al., 366 Pa. 23 , 76 A. 2d 406 ), but contends that the doctrine is usually applied when the incontrovertible physical facts are established as part of the evidence adduced by a defendant, and that here such facts were established by the

1954We are not able in a situation of this type, of course, to invoke the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine as the testimony and evidence is approximate and not fixed and determined with absolute certainty. [See Hetzlein v. Johnstown Traction Co., 365 Pa. 360, 362-363 , 75 A. 2d 533 ; Cunningham v. P. R.

1954We are not able in a situation of this type, of course, to invoke the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine as the testimony and evidence is approximate and not fixed and determined with absolute certainty. [See Hetzlein v. Johnstown Traction Co., 365 Pa. 360, 362-363 , 75 A. 2d 533 ; Cunningham v. P. R.

1954But such conclusion rested upon oral testimony which , the jury . could accept or reject. *348 Appellant admits that under the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine no fact based on oral testimony is incontrovertible until it receives the imprimatur of a jury’s acceptance (Majewski et al v. Lempka et al., 321 Pa. 369 , 183 A. 777 ; Wermeling v. Shattuck et al., 366 Pa. 23 , 76 A. 2d 406 ), but contends that the doctrine is usually applied when the incontrovertible physical facts are established as part of the evidence adduced by a defendant, and that here such facts were established by the

1954But such conclusion rested upon oral testimony which , the jury . could accept or reject. *348 Appellant admits that under the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine no fact based on oral testimony is incontrovertible until it receives the imprimatur of a jury’s acceptance (Majewski et al v. Lempka et al., 321 Pa. 369 , 183 A. 777 ; Wermeling v. Shattuck et al., 366 Pa. 23 , 76 A. 2d 406 ), but contends that the doctrine is usually applied when the incontrovertible physical facts are established as part of the evidence adduced by a defendant, and that here such facts were established by the

1954The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Pastore v. Suglia, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 339 , 101 A. 2d In Greene v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. 389 , 124 A. 134 , the trial court entered a non-suit on the ground, that plaintiff, who had stepped in a hole in the sidewalk, was contributorily negligent.

1953It is *639 well settled that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: DiGregorio, Admr., v. Skinner et al., 351 Pa. 441 .

1953The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where there are possible variables and where moving objects are concerned: Mull v. Bothwell, 338 Pa. 233 , 12 A. 2d 561; nor where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Richardson v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 636 , 95 A. 2d 365 .

1953The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where there are possible variables and where moving objects are concerned: Mull v. Bothwell, 338 Pa. 233 , 12 A. 2d 561; nor where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Richardson v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 636 , 95 A. 2d 365 .

1953Whether the testimony of defendant was more believable than that of plaintiff, in the light of the incontrovertible physical facts with respect to the damage to the motor vehicles, depended upon a matter of credibility which was for the jury to resolve: Streilein et al. v. Vogel et al., 363 Pa. 379 .

1953The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where there are possible variables and where moving objects are concerned: Mull v. Bothwell, 338 Pa. 233 , 12 A. 2d 561; nor where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Richardson v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 636 , 95 A. 2d 365 .

1953The incontrovertible physical facts rule does not apply where there are possible variables and where moving objects are concerned: Mull v. Bothwell, 338 Pa. 233 , 12 A. 2d 561; nor where the testimony of witnesses is needed to apply the facts to the issue in the case: Richardson v. Wilkes-Barre Transit Corporation, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 636 , 95 A. 2d 365 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .

1944It is well settled in this Commonwealth that the incontrovertible physical facts rule has no relevancy where the testimony of witnesses is needed in order to apply those facts to the issue in the case: Scalet v. Bell Telephone Co., 291 Pa. 451 , 140 A. 141 ; Pfeffer v. Johnstown, 287 Pa. 370 , 135 A. 127 ; Adams v. Armour & Co., 142 Pa. Superior Ct. 280 , 16 A. 2d 142 .