Adams v. Fields
| Citation | 308 Pa. 301,162 A. 177 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | 226 |
| Parties | Adams v. Fields, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 10, 1932
Appeal, No. 226, Jan. T., 1932, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Erie Co., Feb. T., 1930, No. 399, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Louis M. Adams v. Benjamin F. Fields also known as B. F. Fields. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SHULL, P.J., specially presiding.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,900. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was refusal of judgment for defendant n.o.v., quoting record.
The judgment is affirmed.
Wayne A. Gleeten, of Hosbach & Gleeten, for appellant. -- The judgment cannot stand because Louis M. Adams, the plaintiff drove on, after he was temporarily blinded by the lights of the defendant's approaching truck: Robinson v. Twp., 90 Pa.Super. 139.
Thomas W. Barber, of Kitts, Barber & Sennett, with him Samuel J. Roberts, for appellee. -- If the testimony presents any doubt or raises any inferences as to whether the plaintiff was "temporarily blinded" or not, it would seem that any inference to be drawn from this testimony would be for the jury.
Plaintiff had the right to rely on the assumption that all persons will use ordinary care to protect him and the mere failure to anticipate the negligence of another does not defeat an action for the injuries sustained: Weiss v. Ry. Co., 301 Pa. 539; Nevin Bus Line, etc., v. Hostetter Co., 305 Pa. 72; Hayes v. Shoemaker, 302 Pa. 72; Shellenberger v. Transit Co., 303 Pa. 122; Amey v. Erb, 296 Pa. 561.
In the instant case the plaintiff had safely passed the front wheel and fender of the defendant's truck and the impact was caused by the projecting body and it may be said that, if it had not been for the overhanging body, the collision would not have occurred: Lane v. Mullen, 285 Pa. 161; Cupples v. Yearick, 99 Pa.Super. 269; Cramer v. Aluminum, 239 Pa. 120.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SIMPSON, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.
At 10 p.m., September 28, 1929, the plaintiff was driving a Ford sedan on a public highway in Crawford County in a northerly direction. At a certain point on this highway, he saw approaching him from the opposite direction the lights of another motor vehicle. Plaintiff continued driving on his right side of the highway, and when the oncoming motor vehicle was about to pass him, he observed that it had a wide truck body projecting over the fenders on its left side. He also observed that the left side of the truck was projecting beyond the center of the highway. Plaintiff turned his car to the right, but the rear of the motor truck swerved and struck the left side of the plaintiff's sedan. Plaintiff averred that defendant was driving on the wrong side of the highway, that he was traveling at a high, dangerous and unlawful rate of speed, that he did not have his truck under proper control, that the truck had an oversized body, and that defendant did not have proper clearance lights on the truck, thereby violating article VIII, section 801, paragraph E, of the Pennsylvania Motor Code of 1929. Plaintiff also averred that defendant's truck had part of its body extending beyond the fenders on the left, in violation of article IX, section 902, paragraph E, of the Pennsylvania Motor Code of 1929. It was testified that the body of the truck projected beyond the fenders approximately one foot. Actual measurements revealed that the truck fenders measured 68 inches from outside edges, while the body was 94 inches in width. The truck was lighted only by two head lights. The left front corner of the truck's body struck the left side of plaintiff's automobile, damaging the latter and crushing plaintiff's left elbow to such an extent that an immediate amputation of his left arm above the elbow was necessary. After trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of seventy-nine hundred dollars. Defendant made a motion for a new trial and for judgment n.o.v. These rules were discharged and judgment was directed to be entered on the verdict. Appeal was then taken to this court.
It is the contention of the appellant that the appellee was guilty of contributory negligence in that he drove his car when he was temporarily blinded by the lights of the approaching truck. The appellee's testimony as to the "blinding" was that the head lights on the truck "reflected" in his eyes when the two cars were about one hundred feet apart, and when he was asked if he then slackened his speed, he said, "No." He continued at the rate of about thirty to thirty-five miles an hour. The appellee did not use the word "blinded" in his testimony, although appellee's counsel in cross-examining him assumed a fact not in evidence by incorporating the word "blinding" in his question as follows: The appellant cites the case of Robinson v. Logan Township, 90 Pa.Super. 139, in which case the Superior Court said that the light of defendant's car "blinded the driver of the plaintiff's car," and, in passing the defendant's car, the plaintiff drove his...
To continue reading
Request your trial