Anderson v. Wood

• Citation: 107 A. 658,264 Pa. 98
• Decision Date: 10 March 1919
• Docket Number: 80
• Parties: Anderson v. Wood, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

107 A. 658

264 Pa. 98

Anderson v. Wood, Appellant

No. 80

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 10, 1919

Argued January 13, 1919

Appeal, No. 80, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1914, No. 2297, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Blanche E. Anderson Administratrix of the Estate of John A. Anderson, deceased v. Thomas D. Wood. Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before ROGERS, J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $3,500. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was in refusing judgment for defendant n.o.v.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Francis B. Bracken, with him Sheldon F. Potter and C. C. Norris, Jr., for appellant, cited: Rose v. Quaker City Cab Co., 69 Pa.Super. 208; Harman v. Penna. Traction Co., 200 Pa. 311; Virgilio v. Walker, 254 Pa. 241; Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174; Creed v. Penna. R.R., 86 Pa. 139.

Thomas F. Gain, with him Francis Shunk Brown and Ira Jewell Williams, for appellee, cited: Virgilio v. Walker, 254 Pa. 241; Kerbaugh v. U.S. Express Co., 58 Pa.Super. 556.

Before BROWN, C.J., MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER, WALLING and KEPHART, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:

"Vehicles have the right-of-way on the portion of the highway set aside for them, but at crossings all drivers, particularly of motor vehicles, must be highly vigilant and maintain such control that, on the shortest possible notice, they can stop their cars so as to prevent danger to pedestrians; on the other hand, between crossings drivers are not held to the same high standard of care, although, of course, they must be constantly on the lookout for the safety of others." Where a pedestrian traverses a public highway between the regular crossings, he is bound to a high degree of care: Virgilio v. Walker & Brehm, 254 Pa. 241. "Pedestrians are not restricted to the use of established street crossings when they attempt to pass from one side of the street to the other. They have a right to pass at whatever point they elect": Watts v. Plymouth Borough, 255 Pa. 185-188. A pedestrian cannot be held to be negligent by the court, as a matter of law, when he attempts to cross a street between the regular crossings, but in exercising this right he must have due regard to the conditions of the traffic before he enters the cartway. If he deliberately attempts to cross the street when vehicles are rapidly approaching close by, and injury results, ordinarily, he will be chargeable with such carelessness as to prevent a recovery of damages; but, having observed the traffic, and it being far enough away that a pedestrian using due care would deem it safe to go across in front of the approaching traffic, he is under no fixed duty to look back; though the circumstances may be such that in the exercise of due care it would become his duty to so look and it would be negligence for him to disregard it.

In the case under consideration, when Anderson, the man who was injured, was seen in the cartway, the appellant's automobile was more than one hundred feet away from him approaching on the side of the street Anderson was then crossing. No machine or vehicle was between the driver of the car and the pedestrian; each had an unobstructed view. It was not negligence for Anderson to attempt to cross, and that he did not use due care after leaving the sidewalk was for defendant to establish, unless it appeared from appellee's evidence. It was not necessary for the appellee to show that Anderson, who is now dead, looked from right to left after he left the sidewalk. She is entitled to the presumption that deceased did that which a prudent man would do under the circumstances and that he continued to do so until the accident took place. Having, without fault on his part, committed himself to the act of crossing, it became the duty of appellant to...