Healy v. Shedaker

• Decision Date: 28 April 1919
• Docket Number: 244
• Citation: 264 Pa. 512,107 A. 842
• Parties: Healy v. Shedaker, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

107 A. 842

264 Pa. 512

Healy v. Shedaker, Appellant

No. 244

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 28, 1919

Argued March 24, 1919

Appeal, No. 244, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1917, No. 1112, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary A. Healy v. C. Ardley Shedaker. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before PATTERSON, J.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,500. Defendant appealed.

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

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

William G. Wright, with him Robert P. F. Maxwell, for appellant.

Sidney E. Smith, with him Martin J. Powers and W. A. Rex Schultze for appellee.

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

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:

A mere statement of the facts is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the court below.

The appellee was walking across Broad street, as it intersects Susquehanna avenue, in the City of Philadelphia. She had proceeded as far as the island safety zone, when she looked southward, from which direction travel would come. Seeing no vehicle approaching, she proceeded to a point about twenty feet from the safety zone, or eight feet from the eastern curb, when she was struck by the appellant's car proceeding north on Broad street. The night was dark, the car had no lights, no warning sound of approach was given, and it was traveling at a speed of from twenty to thirty miles an hour as it passed a witness a short distance south of the crossing. This testimony, accepted by the jury, clearly established the defendant's negligence. It is the duty of the driver of an automobile, when approaching a street crossing, to have his car under such control that he may stop it so as to avoid an accident.

The appellant's contention that the appellee did not use due care in not constantly looking to the south to ascertain the approach of the car, and was, therefore, guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, is without merit. It was dark, and the car was traveling without lights. Had she looked she scarcely could have observed it in time to free herself from danger. This was, however, for the jury to determine. While it was her duty to look where she was going, and not rush blindly into danger, the facts in this case do not call for the application of that rule. She had looked before starting from...