Opinion
November 12, 1934.
December 18, 1934.
Negligence — Automobiles — Contributory negligence — Questions for jury — Collision at intersection — Evidence.
In an action of trespass for personal injuries, the negligence of defendant in operating its bus is established by evidence that while the traffic light at the crossing showed red against him, he continued across the intersection at high speed and ran into plaintiff's truck, which was proceeding slowly from the intersecting street; and, in such case, the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence is for the jury, where there is evidence from which the jury could find that when plaintiff, about twenty feet from the pedestrian crossing, looked to his left and saw defendant's bus, it was approximately a block away, and that on entering the actual street intersection, plaintiff's view to the left was partially obstructed by an automobile which was going alongside of him and interfered with his seeing the defendant's bus continuing into the intersection at high speed against the traffic signal.
Appeal No. 327, October T., 1934, by defendant from judgment of C.P., Berks County, October T., 1933, No. 127 (Judgment Docket, April T., 1934, No. 6,) in the case of Clayton S. Bachman v. Reading Coach Company.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SCHAEFFER, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict and judgment thereon for plaintiff in amount of $1,632.33. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of judgment n.o.v.
Mark C. McQuillen, and with him Charles W. Matten and Harry R. Matten. Charles H. Weidner, and Stevens Lee, for appellee, were not heard.
Argued November 12, 1934.
The facts in this case bring it within our decision in Myers v. Funk, 111 Pa. Super. 17, 169 A. 400. Defendant's driver was unquestionably guilty of negligence. With the traffic light showing red against him he continued eastward on Spring Street, in the City of Reading, at high speed, across the intersection with Centre Avenue and ran into plaintiff's truck, which was going slowly northward on Centre Avenue. Had the plaintiff seen defendant's bus just before it entered the street intersection the case would have been governed by Byrne v. Schultz, 306 Pa. 427, 160 A. 125, and it would have been the duty of the trial court to have ruled that he was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. But there was evidence from which the jury could find that when plaintiff, about twenty feet from the pedestrian crossing, looked to his left and saw defendant's bus it was approximately a block away; and, from which it could reasonably infer, that on entering the actual street intersection plaintiff's view to the left was partially obstructed by a sedan automobile going alongside of him, which was making a left hand turn into Spring Street, and interfered with his seeing the defendant's bus continuing into the intersection at high speed against the traffic signal.
In these circumstances the questions of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were for the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.