Opinion
October 13, 1931.
December 11, 1931.
Negligence — Automobile — Truck — Collision — Acute angle street intersection — Evidence — Case for jury.
In an action of trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between two motor vehicles at an acute angle street intersection, the plaintiff testified that he was proceeding southwardly at about 15 miles per hour as he approached the intersection and that when he reached the curb of the intersecting street he saw the defendant's truck approaching from his left about 35 feet therefrom and coming at a speed of 15 or 20 miles per hour. Thinking he could clear the intersection before the defendant's truck arrived, the plaintiff blew his horn and proceeded at a slightly lower rate of speed and was just passing the center of the intersection when he saw defendant's driver increase his speed and turn his truck toward him. The plaintiff attempted to avoid the collision by turning to his right but failed.
In such case the questions of the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's contributory negligence were for the jury and a judgment for the plaintiff will be affirmed.
Appeal No. 176, October T., 1931, by defendant from judgment of C.P., No. 1, Philadelphia County, June T., 1926, No. 1129, in the case of John H. Holt v. Metropolitan Storage Company.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover for damages to an automobile and for personal injuries. Before KUN, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $900 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Ward C. Henry, for appellant.
Emanuel Moss of Moss and Moss, for appellee.
Argued October 13, 1931.
Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision.
Plaintiff was traveling southeastwardly on Haverford Avenue, Philadelphia, about the middle of the street, which was forty-four feet wide between curbs, approaching its intersection with 57th Street. The intersection is not at right angles; the northeast and southwest angles being 135 degrees and the other two 45 degrees. Defendant's truck was traveling south on 57th Street. A building located on the northwest corner, together with the acute angle of intersection, made it difficult for the plaintiff to see the traffic coming south on 57th Street.
When the plaintiff, traveling about fifteen miles an hour, got to the west curb of 57th Street he saw defendant's truck approaching on his left and about thirty-five feet north of the street intersection, coming at a speed of fifteen or twenty miles an hour. Having the right of way and thinking he could clear the intersection before the defendant's truck arrived at the intersection of the paths of the vehicles, he blew his horn and proceeded at a slightly lower rate of speed, and was just passing the center of the intersection when he saw defendant's driver increase his speed and veer to the east, (the driver's left), and in order to avoid the collision which would then have resulted whether he had stopped at once or proceeded across 57th Street, he put on his brakes and turned southwardly into 57th Street, but nevertheless was collided with by defendant's truck after he had gone about fifteen feet southwardly.
There was evidence establishing the negligence of defendant's driver, while the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was not so clear as to justify the court in ruling upon it as matter of law.
We think the facts of the case bring it within the decisions of this court in Concannon v. Little, 95 Pa. Super. 230 and Ensell v. Atlantic Refining Co., 92 Pa. Super. 586, rather than the cases relied on by appellant, and that the defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence were questions for the jury, and did not warrant binding instructions for the defendant.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.