Summary
In Toyer v. Hilleman, 320 Pa. 417, 183 A. 53, the defendant was approaching the intersection at great speed and the Court said: "In analogous circumstances we have held that the driver who commits himself to a crossing at an intersection in the face of a rapidly approaching vehicle thereby tests an obvious danger...."
Summary of this case from Bell v. DuganOpinion
January 8, 1936.
January 31, 1936.
Negligence — Contributory — Automobiles — Intersection — Crossing in advance of oncoming car.
A driver approaching a street intersection who observes another car approaching on his right, and who attempts to cross without taking precautions against its obvious speed of approach or continuing his observation of the oncoming car, is contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Argued January 8, 1936.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 371, Jan. T., 1935, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1932, No. 1526, in case of Lambert Toyer v. Louis Hilleman. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass. Before FINLETTER, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Compulsory nonsuit entered. Motion to take off nonsuit dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of motion to take off nonsuit.
Louis Sherr, with him Albert H. Wernick, for appellant.
Algernon R. Clapp, of White, Maris Clapp, with him Wayland H. Elsbree, for appellee.
Appellant was nonsuited in the court below because his case presented the clearest kind of contributory negligence. We need not review the facts. We have examined the record and agree with this conclusion of the court below.
A driver approaching a street intersection who observes another car approaching on his right, does not discharge his duty by attempting to cross in the path of the oncoming car without again taking precautions against its obvious speed of approach. Having knowledge of this and of the other attending circumstances, he must govern himself accordingly: cf. Fearn v. City of Phila., 320 Pa. 156.
In analagous circumstances we have held that the driver who commits himself to a crossing at an intersection in the face of a rapidly-approaching vehicle thereby tests an obvious danger, and comes under the duty of continuing his observation of the other vehicle so that he may thereafter avert the consequences of his own carelessness. Appellant's failure to do so renders him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law: Alperdt v. Paige, 292 Pa. 1; Susa v. Consolidated Ice Co., 311 Pa. 150.
Judgment affirmed.