Goff v. College Hill Borough

• Decision Date: 05 February 1930
• Docket Number: 183
• Citation: 299 Pa. 343,149 A. 477
• Parties: Goff v. College Hill Borough et al
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

149 A. 477

299 Pa. 343

Goff v. College Hill Borough et al

No. 183

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 5, 1930

Argued October 7, 1929

Appeal, No. 183, March T., 1929, by Henry G. Goff, from judgment of C.P. Beaver Co., Sept. T., 1928, No. 97, for defendant, Borough of College Hill, n.o.v., in suit of Henry G. Goff v. Borough of College Hill and Frank W. Bowers. Affirmed.

Appeal No. 184, March T., 1929, by Frank W. Bowers, from judgment of C.P. Beaver Co., Sept. T., 1928, No. 97, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Henry G. Goff v. Borough of College Hill and Frank W. Bowers. Reversed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before READER, P.J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $8,500.

Judgment for defendant, Borough of College Hill, n.o.v.

Henry G. Goff appealed in No. 183 and Frank W. Bowers in No. 184.

Error assigned in No. 183, inter alia, was judgment for defendant College Hill Borough, n.o.v., quoting record.

Error assigned in No. 184, inter alia, was judgment on verdict, quoting record.

The judgment entered for the defendant Borough of College Hill, non obstante veredicto, is affirmed and the judgment entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant, Frank W. Bowers, is reversed and here entered for the defendant, non obstante veredicto.

Samuel Pringle, with him Dalzell, Dalzell & McFall, for appellant. -- The testimony of plaintiff himself, together with that of the other witnesses, considered in the light of the physical facts and circumstances surrounding the accident convicts plaintiff of contributory negligence: Weaver v. Pickering, 279 Pa. 214; Buccilli v. Shanahan, 266 Pa. 342; Watson v. Lit Brothers, 288 Pa. 175.

Thompson Bradshaw, with him Sam B. Wilson, for appellee.

Charles F. Patterson, for College Hill Borough.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE WALLING:

Seventh Avenue, a wide and much traveled street, extends through the populous Borough of Beaver Falls in a northerly and southerly direction. It is a wide avenue and from Twentieth Street north has a grassplot in the center with a twenty-two feet paved cartway on either side, that to the east being northbound. There are, of course, sidewalks on each side of the avenue and Mrs. Carnagie has a store on the east side, a short distance north of Twentieth Street. On the early afternoon of October 11, 1926, Henry W. Goff, the plaintiff, a traveling salesman for a candy company, parked his Ford coupe in front of the store, headed north, and alighted therefrom. Soon thereafter, at the request of street sweepers, he reentered his car and moved it back ten or twelve feet, near where another Ford coupe was parked. Goff had some sample cases in the right side of the coupe, because of which he entered and alighted therefrom on the left, the street side. While Goff was so moving his coupe, a large autotruck, owned by College Hill, the defendant borough, and loaded with ashes for use on its streets, was driven north in Seventh Avenue followed by a Studebaker car driven by the wife of the defendant, Frank W. Bowers. The truck was seven feet wide and, being driven along the center of the northbound cartway, left a space of approximately seven feet between it and the curb at the grassplot. As the truck and the Studebaker proceeded north of Twentieth Street, Mrs. Bowers attempted to pass the truck and her right fender collided with the hub of the truck's left front wheel, causing its driver to lose control of the steering wheel, so the truck turned suddenly to the right, where, before landing against a tree, it struck plaintiff's coupe and pushed it onto the sidewalk. At this moment plaintiff, having moved his coupe, as above stated, was attempting to alight in the cartway with one foot on the running board and the other on or near the ground, so that his foot was caught and seriously injured between his car and the truck. The latter had come along the street at the rate of about twelve miles an hour and the Studebaker, when attempting to pass, was, of course, moving with greater speed. Goff, a very large man and familiar with the street, was alighting from his car without looking for approaching traffic and did not see either the truck or the Studebaker until the instant he was struck. Had he glanced to the south he would have seen the near approach of the large truck, so close in line with the left side of his car as to leave a clearance of not more than two feet. The jury found against both defendants, they having been jointly sued. Later, the trial court entered judgment against Bowers but in favor of the defendant borough non obstante veredicto. Bowers appealed from the judgment entered against him and plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered in favor of the borough.

In our opinion plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence as to bar a recovery against either defendant. As the motor traffic upon paved streets is becoming more extensive, the duty of a party to look before entering a cartway becomes more important. We have never departed from the rule stated in Harris v. Commercial Ice Co., 153 Pa. 278, that one who steps into a busy street and is immediately struck by a passing vehicle which he could have seen had he looked cannot recover. See also Robb v Connellsville Boro., 137 Pa. 42. While in Weaver v. Pickering, 279 Pa. 214, we held that to step into the cartway of a two-way city street, without looking in both directions, is such contributory negligence as to prevent a recovery. An instruction which relieves a party from his duty to look before passing over a street is erroneous: Kauffman v. Nelson, 225 Pa. 174. While Alexander v. American Express Co., 258 Pa. 378, holds that one who is injured, while crossing a street, by a...