Opinion
March 17, 1933.
April 17, 1933.
Negligence — Automobile — Right angle street intersection — Collision — Right of way — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.
In an action of trespass to recover for damages to an automobile sustained in a collision at a right angle street intersection, the plaintiff testified that he was proceeding westwardly and that when 100 feet from the intersection he saw the defendant's car approaching from his left about 300 or 400 feet away. The plaintiff stated that he proceeded at a speed of 18 to 20 miles per hour; that he sounded his horn and that upon arriving at the intersection the defendant's car was about 100 feet away traveling at a rapid rate of speed. It appeared that the plaintiff continued to advance and when he saw a collision was about to occur he turned to the right and the two cars collided.
In such case the questions of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were for the jury and a judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff will be affirmed.
Appeal No. 26, March T., 1933, by defendant from judgment of C.P., Dauphin County, March T., 1931, No. 853, in the case of Richard C. Eichelberger and Mary J. Eichelberger, his wife, v. Leroy Ornsdorf.
Before TREXLER, P.J. KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover for damages to an automobile. Before Fox, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $500 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Thomas D. Caldwell, of Caldwell, Fox Stoner, for appellant.
M.R. Metzger, of Metzger Wickersham, for appellee.
Argued March 17, 1933.
This is a suit in trespass arising out of the colliding of two automobiles at a right angle street intersection. The only question submitted is whether the court should have decided, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The court below refused so to rule. The plaintiff going west and having the right of way was approaching a crossing about 100 feet distant, and saw appellant coming from the south about 300 or 400 feet away and plaintiff blowing his horn proceeded towards the intersection at a speed of about eighteen or twenty miles per hour. When he looked again he was at the intersection and defendant's car about 100 feet south traveling at a rapid rate of speed. Plaintiff continued to advance and when he saw a collision was about to occur he turned to the right and the two cars collided by way of a "side swipe."
Under these circumstances it was for the jury to determine whether the plaintiff had the right to assume he might cross the intersection safely. We agree with the lower court that the case is ruled by that of Adams v. Gardiner, 306 Pa. 576, 160 A. 589; see also Barton v. Franklin, 309 Pa. 243.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.