Lamont v. Adams Express Co.
Decision Date | 17 February 1919 |
Docket Number | 194 |
Parties | Lamont v. Adams Express Co., Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued January 22, 1919
Appeal, No. 194, Jan. T., 1918, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1916, No. 2929, on a verdict for plaintiff in case of Walter G. Lamont v. Adams Express Company. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before ROGERS, J.
Verdict for plaintiff for $9,757, upon which judgment was entered.
The court overruled defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were overruling motion for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial, and answers to points.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
William A. Schnader, with him Thomas DeWitt Cuyler, for appellant. -- The plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence Virgilio v. Walker, 254 Pa. 241; Watts v Plymouth Boro., 255 Pa. 185; Warruna v. Dick, 261 Pa. 602.
The defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that if the defendant's truck was in plain view when the plaintiff stepped into the street, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Wm. Clarke Mason, with him Leon J. Obermayer, for appellee.
Before STEWART, FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and KEPHART, JJ.
This action in trespass is for personal injuries sustained in a collision with an electric truck. Plaintiff resided at 1610 Vine street, Philadelphia, on the south side of the street about one hundred and ten feet west of Sixteenth street. Between the sidewalks in Vine street there is a twenty-six foot paved cartway and in its center a single track street railroad. On the afternoon of December 8, 1916, plaintiff, a toolmaker by trade, was out in search of employment, and about six o'clock came back to the northwest corner of Sixteenth and Vine streets where he talked for fifteen minutes with an acquaintance and then left for home. Plaintiff's evidence is that he went west a short distance, probably about twenty-five feet, on the north side of Vine street and then, after looking in both directions for approaching vehicles and seeing none, started diagonally across the cartway in the direction of his home, going on a jog trot faster than a quick walk; that, on account of public garages just west in the same block from which automobiles were liable to emerge and come suddenly down the street, he kept a constant watch in that direction and did not look back while passing over the cartway. Meantime defendant's truck was proceeding west along the railway track in Vine street and after crossing Sixteenth street turned to the left and near the south curb, without warning, struck plaintiff, inflicting upon him serious and permanent injuries. The street was lighted and the truck was not moving rapidly. Defendant's driver testified that he turned to the left side of the street to clear the track for a westbound trolley car, to which his attention was momentarily drawn so that he failed to see plaintiff before the accident. A part of the cartway near the north curb, opposite plaintiff's residence, was temporarily occupied by a tool box, mortar bed, etc., used in connection with work in progress on that side of the street; and the driver gives that as his reason for turning to the left in place of to the right as he ordinarily would have done. The diagonal course traversed by plaintiff in the cartway was about ninety feet. Plaintiff testified that he knew nothing of the approaching truck until struck just as he was stepping from the cartway onto the south walk; while the evidence for defendant is that plaintiff had passed over the walk and up onto the steps of the residence next east of his own, when he staggered back some eight feet across the walk and fell or rolled over the curb in front of the truck. The trial judge instructed the jury that if the latter version was true there could be no recovery and submitted to them the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. This appeal by defendant is from judgment entered on the verdict for plaintiff.
A pedestrian, using care according to the circumstances, may lawfully cross a city...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Komer v. Shipley, 11490.
...turn and look back while walking in the street is not of itself sufficient to convict him of contributory negligence. (Lamont v. Adams Express Co., 264 Pa. 17, 107 A. 373; Berry on the Law of Automobiles (2d Ed.) § 217), and no other fact is here shown tending in that direction. So the ques......
-
Altsman v. Kelly
...that plaintiff was negligent in proceeding toward the opposite corner after seeing the truck approaching. Lamont v. Adams Express Co., 264 Pa. 17, 107 A. 373. She had the right to rely upon the assumption that the operator of the truck would not ignore the traffic signal, and her own rightf......
-
Di Bona v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.
...one, but believes that it is safe for him to cross the street before the car passes over the crossing’: Citing Lamont v. Adams Express Co., 264 Pa. 17, Fish v. Stulb, 274 Pa. 87, 117 A. 789. In the Lamont case this court said [264 Pa. 35, 107 A. 375]: ‘The trial court could not properly gra......
-
Robb v. Quaker City Cab Co.
...lookout in crossing a street diagonally, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that he must turn and look back. Lamont v. Adams Express Co., 264 Pa. 17, 107 A. 373. The south-bound cartway being apparently free from traffic, the jury might excuse plaintiff for giving his attention momentaril......