From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruthberg v. P. R. T. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 12, 1930
151 A. 19 (Pa. 1930)

Opinion

April 24, 1930.

May 12, 1930.

Negligence — Street railways — Injury to passenger — Collision of motor car with truck — Contributory negligence — Failure to look — Presumption — Proximate cause.

1. While street car companies have not the exclusive use of the trolley tracks, their rights are superior to those of the traveling public and their cars have the right of way.

2. No one is warranted in assuming that, if he first reaches the crossing, he may proceed and that the whole duty of care and vigilance is thus cast on the motorman; the duty to look for an approaching car is an absolute duty, and failure to do so is negligence per se.

3. In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries sustained in a collision between the car in which plaintiff was riding and a truck, a nonsuit is properly entered where the evidence shows that the car was proceeding to an intersection with a clear view ahead and at moderate speed, and that the truck driver approaching the crossing at right angles either lost control of his vehicle, or took the chance of crossing the track ahead of the car.

4. In such case, it is immaterial that the car gave no sign of warning, if it appears that, if such signal had been given, it would not materially have changed the situation; it would have told the truck driver only what presumably he already knew.

Argued April 24, 1930.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

Appeals, Nos. 218 and 219, Jan. T., 1930, by plaintiffs, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1927, No. 2166, refusing to take off nonsuit, in case of Nathan Ruthberg et ux. v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. and John Tarquinio et al., individually and as copartners, trading as Bryn Mawr Auto Trucking Co. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before DAVIS, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Nonsuit; refusal to take off. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned was order, quoting record.

Cecil P. Harvey, of Horenstein, Feldman Harvey, for appellant.

S. Regen Ginsburg, for appellee, was not heard.


These two appeals were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion, the question involved being the same in both cases.

On May 3, 1927, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, a trolley car of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, one of defendants, and a heavy motor truck owned by the Bryn Mawr Auto Trucking Company, the other defendant, collided at the intersection of two thoroughfares in a surburban district of the City of Philadelphia. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, the latter, a passenger on the street car, sustained injuries as a result of the collision. They instituted a joint action in trespass against both owners to recover damages. At the close of plaintiffs' case, the trial judge entered a nonsuit as to the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company and proceded with the trial against the trucking company, the jury returning a verdict for the latter defendant. Plaintiff thereupon moved to take off the nonsuit and also for a new trial. The court in banc sustained the nonsuit, but awarded a new trial as to the trucking company. The appeals here are by plaintiffs from the refusal to take off the nonsuit.

The facts and circumstances as revealed by the record of the case clearly relieve defendant street car company from the charge of negligence on the part of the operator of its car.

The accident occurred in a surburban section not closely built up, and the evidence before us, — that of plaintiff and her one witness, — discloses that no building or other obstruction prevented the driver of the motor truck from noticing the approaching street car. The truck was traveling at a speed of 25 miles an hour on a roadway that intersected the highway over which the car tracks extended, towards which tracks the motor vehicle was moving. The witness for plaintiff, a passenger in the car at the time of the collision, testified he was looking out of the window and first saw the truck thirty feet from the middle of the intersection of the two streets and that the trolley car was within ten feet of the intersection. We find no evidence to even indicate that at any time before the accident the driver of the truck brought his vehicle to a stop or reduced its speed. He continued to drive forward, and, being close to the tracks, saw the imminence of a collision, and swerved his truck intending to drive parallel with the trolley line, and in doing so, collided with the car, then abreast of him, striking it near the front end. The witness was asked: "Q. The truck kept on going toward the trolley car, did it? A. He first tried to swerve alongside the trolley car, and he saw he could not get across the tracks ahead of the car. . . . . . Q. Did he keep on going and bump into the trolley car. . . . . . . A. Yes, sir. He tried to get across in front of the car or to run alongside of it. Then he saw he could not make that, and swerved back again and crashed in the car."

Obviously, the inference from the testimony, not in dispute, is that the truck driver either lost control of his vehicle, or took the chance of crossing the track ahead of the car. In either case, no situation was there created out of which arises a question of negligence on the part of the operator of the street car. The latter had a clear track ahead, his car was in full view of the truck driver, presumably the latter saw it approaching and, at the moment of the collision, the trolley had already reached the intersection, with no danger apparent. The motorman certainly could not anticipate, much less foresee, the hazardous maneuvers of the truck driver. Moreover, the car had the legal right of way. There was no occasion for the car to stop and no indication of danger. While street car companies have not the exclusive use of the trolley tracks, their rights are superior to those of the traveling public and their cars have the right of way. "No one is warranted in assuming that if he first reaches the crossing he may proceed and that the whole duty of care and vigilance is thus cast on the motorman. The duty to look for an approaching car is an absolute duty, and failure to do so is negligence per se": Burke v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497, 499.

There was evidence, entirely negative, that the street car gave no warning sound by its gong. It is also apparent that the truck driver gave no warning of his approaching truck. In either case, these signals, if given, would not materially have changed the situation. The court below found the trolley car was practically over the intersection of the roadways at the time the driver of the truck reversed his direction and came in contact with the car. The rate of speed at which the street car was traveling was twenty miles an hour, the customary speed at that point, and that it was brought to a stop almost instantly following the contact, indicates that the motorman had it under proper control. Moreover, neither the rate of speed nor the failure to sound the gong were, under the facts of this case, incidents of which the collision was a consequence; under the circumstances indicated by the record, a gong alarm would have told the truck driver only what presumably he already knew. We agree with the court below that the evidence fails to establish negligence on the part of the motorman of defendant railway company.

The judgment of the court below refusing to take off the nonsuit entered in favor of the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, and the granting of a new trial as to John Tarquinio and Pamfilo Pressedo, trading as Bryn Mawr Auto Trucking Company is affirmed.


Summaries of

Ruthberg v. P. R. T. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 12, 1930
151 A. 19 (Pa. 1930)
Case details for

Ruthberg v. P. R. T. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Ruthberg et ux., Appellants, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. et

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 12, 1930

Citations

151 A. 19 (Pa. 1930)
151 A. 19

Citing Cases

Welsh v. Jump House Wrecking Co.

We find no evidence as to the position or movement of the truck before the collision, and the court below…

Taormino v. Johnstown Traction Co.

We have examined with care, the evidence submitted and viewing it, as we must, in the light most favorable to…