Enfield v. Stout

• Decision Date: 23 May 1960
• Citation: 161 A.2d 22,400 Pa. 6
• Parties: Ross L. ENFIELD and Helen F. Enfield, Donald Lee Enfield and Ronald Enfield, by their Guardian, Ross L. Enfield, v. Frances E. STOUT, James E. Stout, and Donald L. Stout. Frances E. STOUT, James E. Stout, and Frances E. Stout and James E. Stout, Guardians ad litem for Donald L. Stout, v. Donald Lee ENFIELD, Defendant, and Donald L. Stout, Additional Defendant. Appeals of ENFIELD.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

161 A.2d 22

400 Pa. 6

Ross L. ENFIELD and Helen F. Enfield, Donald Lee Enfield and Ronald Enfield, by their Guardian, Ross L. Enfield, v. Frances E. STOUT, James E. Stout, and Donald L. Stout.

Frances E. STOUT, James E. Stout, and Frances E. Stout and James E. Stout, Guardians ad litem for Donald L. Stout, v. Donald Lee ENFIELD, Defendant, and Donald L. Stout, Additional Defendant. Appeals of ENFIELD.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 23, 1960.

Joseph N. Cascio, Paul E. C. Fike, Fike & Cascio Somerset, Frank S. Lucente, Somerset, for appellants.

Frank A. Orban, Jr., Somerset, Walker & Kimmel, Leland W. Walker Somerset, for appellees.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and MUSMANNO, BENJAMIN R JONES, COHEN, BOK, and EAGEN, JJ.

EAGEN, Justice.

This matter involves two appeals in separate actions, arising out of an automobile accident, which were consolidated for the purpose of trial in the court below.

The first case presented in the lower court was that of the Stouts against Donald Lee Enfield. Plaintiffs put in their case. Defendant (the additional defendant, as such, has no interest in this appeal) moved for a compulsory nonsuit and, it being denied, rested without presenting any evidence. Thereupon, defendant moved for a directed verdict. It, too, was denied. Whereupon, the taking of testimony in the case of the Enfields against the Stouts commenced. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the first suit and a verdict for the defendants in the second. At this juncture counsel for Donald Lee Enfield, defendant in the first suit, moved for a judgment non obstante veredicto. This motion was denied and judgment entered upon the jury's verdict. Counsel for the Enfields, plaintiffs in the second suit, moved for a new trial. This was denied and judgment entered upon the verdict. These appeals followed.

On May 13, 1958, at approximately 10:15 p. m., a dark but clear night, a Pontiac Convertible, travelling westwardly on Legislative Route No. 55058 in Somerset Township, came into violent collision with a Dodge truck which was proceeding southwardly along Pleasant Hills Road (a 'side road') at its intersection with the aforesaid Legislative Route. A stop sign, erected on the northwest corner of the square, controlled traffic moving in the direction of the truck.

At these corners the terrain is generally level, the only exception being a 'dip' in the east-west through road. The westernmost lip of this depression is 300 feet east of the intersection in question and visibility from this point into the intersection is unobscured. A car, while in this declivity, is momentarily cut off from a view of the corners in question and, likewise, is hidden from the sight of motorists stopped at or about the stop sign referred to above. This pitch in the road excepted, a view from the northwest section of the corners to the east of three-tenths of a mile is unimpaired.

The driver of the truck, Donald Stout, brought his vehicle to a complete halt in obedience to the stop sign. His father, James, was a passenger. Frances E. Stout, mother and wife respectively of the driver and occupant, was the owner of the truck. The father alighted from the vehicle to adjust chain binders which kept a load of timbers fastened to the flat bed of the trailer section. He stood in front of the truck and looked up and down the road. He then hopped onto the running board on the passenger's side, again looked up and down the through road, and, seeing nothing coming, told his son, 'Go ahead and pour the oil to her; the road is clear both ways.' The son then looked both ways, himself, and seeing nothing coming, started into the intersection. He shifted from 'low' into 'second.' Suddenly and when the truck had travelled approximately only 10 feet, there was a terrific 'explosion.' They did not know what had hit them. They never saw the Pontiac car. The truck was damaged, the two occupants injured. The Pontiac was practically demolished and all three occupants hurt. The truck, following the impact, came to a stop approximately 10 feet from the estimated point of contact and faced westwardly on the northernmost lane of the though road. The car was thrown 20 feet into the southwest corner of the intersection and straddled a culvert there located. Lumber was strewn all over the road. The accident occurred in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. The testimony of the two Stouts, together with that of a passerby, establishes that the lights of the truck were on at the time in question. There is some evidence indicating that young Stout blinked his headlamps, i. e., put them on 'low beam' before entering the intersection.

The testimony in support of the Enfields' claim is substantially as follows. The car, operated by Donald Lee Enfield, in which his brother, Ronald Enfield, and Dale E. Maust were passengers, was travelling in a westerly direction at a speed of approximately 45 miles per hour, with its headlights in operation. When the car came out of the 'dip,' described above, and had arrived at the leveling-off part of the road and reached a point, estimated to be approximately 100 feet from the intersection, the truck was observed for the first time, pulling into the intersection. The operator applied his brakes but, before the automobile could come to a stop, it ran into the truck. These facts were testified to by Ronald Enfield, a passenger. The operator of the automobile and the other guest were seriously injured, and testified that they had no recollection of what happened immediately before or after the collision.

The jury verdict favored the Stouts and, specifically, found Donald Enfield guilty of negligence and Donald L. Stout free from negligence.

In support of the motion for judgment n. o. v. it is argued that there is no evidence to support a finding of negligence on the part of Donald Enfield and also that the testimony convicts the Stouts of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We cannot agree. It appears to us that these were questions for the jury.

For many years under the law of Pennsylvania it has been the rule that the driver of an automobile on a public highway must be alert to have it under such control that he can stop it within the 'assured clear distance ahead.' This requires that the driver operate his automobile at such a rate of speed and in such a manner that he can always stop it within the distance that he can clearly see. Metro v. Long Transportation Company, 1956, 387 Pa. 354, 127 A.2d 716. By this is meant the range of the driver's vision which of course, in darkness is the scope of his headlights. Weibel v. Ferguson, 1941, 342 Pa. 113, 19 A.2d 357. In this case, when the Enfield car came out of the dip, there were approximately 300...