Patton v. George
| Decision Date | 23 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 105 |
| Citation | 131 A. 245,284 Pa. 342 |
| Parties | Patton v. George et al., Receivers, Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 1, 1925
Appeal, No. 105, March T., 1925, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1922, No. 2960, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Elizabeth Patton v. W. D. George et al., Receivers of the Pittsburgh Railways Co. Reversed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before COHEN, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,000. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of judgment for defendant n.o.v quoting bill of exception.
The judgment is reversed and is here entered for the defendant n.o.v.
William A. Challener, with him Craig Smith, for appellants.
W Heber Dithrich, with him Robertson & Jordan, for appellees.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
The Brownsville Road extends through the borough of Carrick, Allegheny County, in an easterly and westerly direction; in the center thereof is defendant's double track electric street railway, the one to the north being inbound and the other outbound. Elizabeth Patton, the plaintiff, resided in this borough on Beck's Run Road, which extends northerly from the Brownsville Road. Late on the evening of July 15, 1921, plaintiff alighted from an outbound car and stepped to the curb on the south side of the Brownsville Road to await the passage of two outbound automobiles. Her testimony is that she then looked in both directions and, finding the street clear, started to walk across it in a northerly direction, so as to enter the Beck's Run Road, and knew nothing of what happened thereafter until she regained consciousness in a doctor's office. As a matter of fact, on leaving the curb she crossed the south cartway of the width of twelve feet and eight inches, the outbound track of the width of five feet and two inches, the space of four feet and four inches between the tracks and had reached at least the center of the second track, when she was struck and injured by an inbound trolley car thereon. Thus, in her attempt to cross the road, she had walked approximately twenty-five feet therein before the accident. The night was clear, the headlight on the trolley car was burning and there was no other object or vehicle present to distract plaintiff's attention. A car approaching on the inbound track could be seen for a distance of two hundred and eighty feet and was in plain sight on a straight track for one hundred and seventy feet before reaching the place of accident. The car was seen on this occasion for more than the latter distance by plaintiff's witness, Mrs. Estell, who testified it was coming "terrible fast." The gong was not sounded nearer than one hundred and seventy feet of the place of accident, and the motorman failed to see plaintiff until he was within about twenty feet thereof. The jury found for the plaintiff and from judgment entered thereon defendant appealed.
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question of defendant's fault, for in our opinion plaintiff failed to present a case clear of contributory negligence. It is an inflexible rule that a traveler must look for approaching cars immediately before entering upon a street car track (Barton v. Lehigh Valley Transit Co., 283 Pa. 577, 580, and authorities there cited), or, as some of the cases say, at the edge of the track (Ehrisman v. Harrisburg Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180; Ervay v. Waverly S. & A. Tract. Co., 240 Pa. 440); failure to do so is negligence per se. This duty is not performed by looking when first entering on the street, but continues until the track is reached: Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497. A look, by a pedestrian, while at the curb, nearly thirteen feet from the first rail, is not a compliance with the rule, and plaintiff makes no claim that she looked again; in fact, her testimony, that she had no knowledge of what took place after leaving the curb, negatives such a suggestion. We have uniformly held that a pedestrian must keep a lookout while crossing a street and that is doubly so where there are car tracks therein; hence, as plaintiff walked twenty-five feet across this road, oblivious to her surroundings, she could not have complied with the rule.
Again one who walks in front of a moving engine or car, which is plainly visible, and is immediately struck is guilty of contributory negligence, regardless of...
To continue reading
Request your trial