Opinion
November 14, 1950.
March 12, 1951.
Negligence — Automobiles — Turn — Hand signals — Circumstances — Contributory negligence — Vehicle Code.
1. Where, in a motor vehicle collision case, it appeared that plaintiff, intending to make a left turn, had been travelling in the left of two lanes of traffic for vehicles proceeding in his direction, near the center line, for about five hundred feet; that plaintiff, driving a closed car, observed defendant's vehicle to his rear, raised his right hand as a signal and kept it in that position until some forty feet before the place where he commenced to turn; and that about fifty feet from the point of turning he applied the brakes, which lit the road lights on the rear of his car, and that he had gradually reduced his speed until he was travelling at eight or ten miles per hour; it was Held that (1) there was evidence that plaintiff had acted in accordance with the requirements of the provisions of The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, as amended, as to hand signals to be given by a driver before turning; (2) whether plaintiff's signal was sufficient was for the jury to decide; (3) plaintiff was not bound to conclude that defendant would continue on his own left hand lane and not move over to his right hand lane, which was clear; and (4) the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
2. Contributory negligence cannot be declared as a matter of law unless the evidence is such that fair and reasonable persons cannot disagree as to it.
Before HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and ARNOLD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J. and GUNTHER, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 109, April T., 1950, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, June T., 1949, No. 201, in case of John F. Evans et ux. v. Joseph Alexander. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for property damage. Before SOHN, J.
Verdict for plaintiffs and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Leonard L. Ewing, with him Reed, Ewing Ray, for appellant.
W.N. Dinsmore, for appellees.
Argued November 14, 1950.
Plaintiffs recovered judgment for damages resulting from a collision with defendant's tractor-trailer which crashed into the rear of their automobile. Defendant appealed from the refusal of his motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and raises the sole contention that the plaintiff-driver was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The jury's verdict established: State Street in the Borough of Baden is approximately forty feet wide, with two lanes of traffic northerly and two lanes southerly. Plaintiffs were travelling in a northerly direction on a clear, dry day. They occupied the lane nearest the center line, intending to enter a service station to the left. There were no vehicles parked in the street near the point of accident; nor was there any traffic except the two vehicles involved. Plaintiffs had been travelling on the inner lane for four or five hundred feet, and observed the defendant's tractor-trailer for some five to six hundred feet behind them. Plaintiff-driver, in a closed car, raised his right hand as a signal, and kept it in that position until some forty feet from the filling station, and then lowered it to make the turn. About fifty feet from the point where he started to turn he applied the brakes, which lit the red lights on the rear of his car. In addition he had gradually reduced his speed until he was travelling at eight to ten miles per hour at the point of his turning. Defendant's tractor-trailer skidded some 165 feet before striking plaintiffs' automobile.
The Vehicle Code of 1929, as amended, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 571, provides that before turning the driver shall first see that such movement can be made safely, and when the operation of a vehicle following may be affected, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of the other vehicle. This signal may be given by the hand and arm, but ". . . if he is driving a closed vehicle, by his hand and arm in such a way as to be visible through the window in the rear . . ." There was ample evidence that the plaintiff-driver acted in accordance with this provision. There was the substantial distance of 500 feet between the vehicles when plaintiffs first observed defendant's vehicle. Whether plaintiff's signal was sufficient was for the jury to decide. Not only was the hand signal given and the rear red lights on, but the plaintiff-driver had been travelling in the left lane for some five hundred feet, was gradually reducing his speed until it got down to about ten miles per hour, and was giving the attendant signals. He was not bound to conclude that the defendant would elect to continue on his own left hand lane, and not move over to his right hand lane, which was entirely free and clear. Cf. Gogel v. Bayer, 165 Pa. Super. 491, 69 A.2d 161. It was the duty of the defendant "to proceed cautiously with his car under control and to avoid passing . . .": Miller v. Southern Asphalt Company et al., 314 Pa. 289, 171 A. 472. See also MacNeill v. Makos, 366 Pa. 465, 77 A.2d 378. The defendant had no occasion to proceed in his left hand lane when the right hand lane was entirely free, and he was not attempting to pass the plaintiffs on their left.
The facts determined by the verdict show that the plaintiff-driver had his car in a place which he had a right to occupy; and that he drove it in accordance with the traffic laws. Contributory negligence cannot be declared as a matter of law unless the evidence was such that fair and reasonable persons could not disagree as to it: Gogel v. Bayer, supra.
Judgment affirmed.