Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

• Citation: 248 Pa. 130,93 A. 873
• Parties: DUNLAP v. PHILADELPHIA RAPID TRANSIT CO.
• Decision Date: 08 February 1915
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

93 A. 873
248 Pa. 130

DUNLAP
v.
PHILADELPHIA RAPID TRANSIT CO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 8, 1915.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County.

Trespass by Jennie H. Dunlap against the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, for the death of plaintiff's husband. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before MESTREZAT, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, and FRAZER, JJ.

Harry A. Mackey, of Philadelphia, for appellant. Layton M. Schoch, of Philadelphia, for appellee.

FRAZER, J. This action was brought by Jennie H. Dunlap, widow of William H. Dunlap, to recover damages for her husband's death. The facts are as follows: On December 31, 1912, plaintiff's husband was riding in a small roadster automobile with Charles Beckman, its owner and driver. Beckman was a constable of the city of Philadelphia, and plaintiff's husband his deputy. The two were transacting business in various parts of the city and drove to the neighborhood of Eighteenth and Manton streets for the purpose of making a distress for rent. When driving out of Manton street to go south on Eighteenth street, the automobile collided with a car of defendant company coming north on Eighteenth street, resulting in the wrecking of the automobile, and inflicting injuries upon plaintiff's husband which caused his death a few days later. A verdict was rendered in plaintiff's favor and on motion of defendant, judgment was subsequently entered in its favor non obstante veredicto, which order is assigned as error. The negligence alleged is excessive speed of the trolley car and failure of the motorman to give warning on approaching Manton street. That the testimony established negligence on the part of defendant company is not clear; however assuming that it did, it is also clear that Beckman, the driver of the automobile, was guilty of negligence in attempting to cross Eighteenth street with the trolley car 40 feet distant, and as he testifies, "coming at a terrific rate of speed," while his automobile was traveling six or seven miles an hour and could be stopped within six feet The automobile driven by Beckman was equipped with a right-hand driving appliance, and accommodated two persons. Beckman, who was sitting on the right-hand side, testified, that when he reached Eighteenth street he did not stop his automobile but looked past plaintiff's husband, who sat at his left, and, not seeing a car, which according to his own testimony was only 40 feet below Manton street...