Lewis v. Quinn

• Decision Date: 04 January 1954
• Parties: LEWIS v. QUINN.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

101 A.2d 382

376 Pa. 109

LEWIS v. QUINN.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 4, 1954

Action for damages sustained in an intersectional automobile collision. From an order of the Court of Common Pleas, No. 3 tried in C. P. No. 1 of the County of Philadelphia as of June term, 1951, No. 3843, George G. Parry, J., the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, No. 273, January term, 1953 Bell, J., held that the evidence established that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.

Order of nonsuit affirmed.

Alan Kahn, Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Francis E. Shields, Thomas E. Comber, Jr., Pepper, Bodine Stokes & Hamilton, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

BELL Justice.

Plaintiff's motion to take off a nonsuit was dismissed and from the order and judgment entered thereon plaintiff has appealed. On this appeal it is by now horn book law that plaintiff must be given the benefit of every fact and every reasonable inference of fact arising from the evidence, and all conflicts therein must be resolved in his favor. McDonald v. Ferrebee, 366 Pa. 543, 79 A.2d 232.

This case involved what is often called a right angle collision between two automobiles. The mere happening of a collision or accident does not raise an inference or presumption of negligence by either party. Plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of the injury; and while he does not have the burden of disproving contributory negligence, he cannot recover if his own case shows him to have been guilty of contributory negligence. Lanni v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 371 Pa. 106, 88 A.2d 887; Thompson v. Gorman, 366 Pa. 242, 246, 77 A.2d 413; Ray v. Manculich, 363 Pa. 445, 447, 70 A.2d 302; Byrne v. Schultz, 306 Pa. 427, 160 A. 125; Albrecht v. Erie City, 265 Pa. 453, 109 A. 153; Dattola v. Burt Bros., Inc., 288 Pa. 134, 136, 135 A. 736, 51 A.L.R. 205.

Plaintiff was driving on a clear night along Roosevelt Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pa., toward New York. He stopped at Mascher Street for a red light. At that time he was in the side or righthand lane of Roosevelt Boulevard on the east side thereof. When the light changed to green plaintiff made a left turn into Mascher Street and stopped again for the light, which was then red for Mascher Street traffic. Roosevelt Boulevard consists at this point of three lanes, about 200 feet wide, a wide center lane for north and southbound traffic, a righthand lane for northbound traffic, and a lefthand lane for southbound traffic. Except at street crossings these three lanes are divided by a green strip.

When the red light on Mascher Street (which is a two-way street) turned green plaintiff started slowly across the boulevard. ‘ I got over about half way-I got across the center lane; I got about half way in between the grass plot, the curbline of the lane on the west side, when I glanced up at the light; I seen I still had the green light and after that I don't remember anything. * * *

Q. In other words you know nothing concerning what came in contact with you? A. No, sir, I don't know what happened. Q. You never saw the thing that came in contact with you? A. No, sir.'

Plaintiff crossed the Boulevard at approximately 12 to 13 miles per hour in second gear. There is no evidence whether he was attempting to drive straight across or to turn left when something hit him, or exactly where his car was when it was hit. After the accident, plaintiff's car was found lying on its left side, nearly in the center of the west lane. It was struck, apparently by defendant's automobile which apparently came from plaintiff's right, three-quarters of the way back from the front fender clear to the back fender. The seat was bent, the floor was bent, the windshield was broken, the glass was knocked out of the door and the chassis had a bend in it of about 6 inches. There was no evidence of the speed of defendant's car. Plaintiff admitted that he could see a distance of at least two city blocks to the right from which direction he was hit, and one-half a block to the left. There was no evidence whether plaintiff looked or didn't look for approaching traffic when he entered either of the intersections of the Boulevard, although it is obvious he did not look.

We are convinced that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that the nonsuit was properly entered.

In Albrecht v. Erie City, 265 Pa. at page 455, 109 A. at page 153, supra, the Court said: ‘ A plaintiff seeking to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant must make out a case clear of contributory negligence. Heiss v. Lancaster, 203 Pa. 260, 52 A. 201; Kuhn v. Ligonier Valley R. R. Co., 261 Pa. 147, 104 A. 557.'

In Byrne v. Schultz, 306 Pa. at pages 431, 432, 433, 160 A. at page 126, supra, the Court said:

‘ * * * our cases have clearly established the fundamental proposition that due care is required at street intersections under all circumstances, whether or not a traffic officer or signal is present. * * * It has been firmly established that a driver having the right of way at an intersection is still bound to use proper care under the circumstances to avoid collision with an approaching vehicle. Alperdt v. Paige, 292 Pa. 1, 140 A. 555; Robinson v. Berger, 295 Pa. 95, 144 A. 899; Campagna v. Lyles, 298 Pa. 352, 148 A. 527; Curry v. Willson & Sons, 301 Pa. 467, 152 A. 746; Bailey v. C. Lewis Lavine, Inc., 302 Pa. 273, 153 A. 422; Frank v. Pleet, 87 Pa.Super. 494. * * *

‘ * * * He must be vigilant, must exercise a high degree of care, must have his car under complete...