Opinion
April 16, 1934.
October 3, 1934.
Negligence — Automobile — Truck — Backing truck into highway — Collision — Contributory negligence — Case for jury.
In an action of trespass to recover damages growing out of a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and a truck owned by the defendant, there was evidence that the defendant's truck, which preceded the plaintiff's car, started to turn into a private driveway but was unable to complete the turn. The plaintiff testified that the driver of the defendant's truck was backing it into the highway when the collision occurred. The defendant's driver and his witnesses stated that the truck was stationary and that the plaintiff, who was approaching at a rapid rate of speed, ran into the rear of the truck.
In such circumstances the case was for the jury and a judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff will be affirmed.
Appeal No. 38, April T., 1934, by defendant from judgment of C.P., Beaver County, March T., 1932, No. 217, in the case of Clyne Kinsey v. Robert Dixon.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.
Trespass to recover for damages resulting from a collision between two vehicles. Before McCONNEL, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $350 and judgment entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
John D. Ray, and with him Harold F. Reed of Reed and Ewing, for appellant.
Lawrence M. Sebring, for appellee.
Argued April 16, 1934.
This is an action in trespass brought by the plaintiff to recover damages growing out of a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and a truck owned by the defendant and operated by his agent.
Clyne Kinsey, the appellee, was driving a sedan in a southerly direction on a public highway leading from Baden to Ambridge. The day was clear and the road was dry and level. He was going about forty miles an hour. He crossed the bridge and about fifty feet beyond he collided with the rear end of the appellant's truck. The appellant's driver had, immediately preceding the collision, turned into a private driveway from the public highway. The turn was so sharp he was unable to enter the gate and the end of the truck and some iron bars loaded thereon projected into the roadway. The appellant's witnesses testify that the truck was stationary. The plaintiff testified that as he came to the place of the collision the truck was backing into the street and that he could not avoid the collision. Although there was considerable testimony to the contrary, the jury could accept his version of it. The court made no reference to this feature of plaintiff's case in his charge, nor was the matter called to its attention. The adequacy of the charge is not involved in the present appeal. The plaintiff further claims that his view was obstructed by poles along the roadway and lattice work at the end of the bridge. These were all matters for the jury, and we are all of the opinion that the verdict and the judgment entered thereon should not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.