Rea v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 33 |
| Citation | 25 A.2d 730,344 Pa. 421 |
| Parties | Rea v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 30, 1942
Appeal, No. 33, March T., 1942, from judgment of Superior Court, April T., 1941, No. 73, reversing judgment of C.P Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1937, No. 3099, in case of Robert Rea v. Pittsburgh Railways Company. Judgment affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before GRAFF, P.J., specially presiding.
Verdict for plaintiff in sum of $2,500. Judgment entered for defendant n.o.v. Plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court which reversed the judgment of the court below. Appeal by defendant to Supreme Court allowed.
Judgment affirmed.
Arthur W. Henderson, with him J. R. McNary, for appellant.
J Thomas Hoffman, with him Joseph A. Burns, for appellee.
Before SCHAFFER, C.J.; MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.
This action in trespass for damages for personal injuries grew out of a right-angle collision at a street intersection in the City of Pittsburgh between the automobile operated by plaintiff, Robert Rea, and a street car owned by defendant, Pittsburgh Railways Company. The jury returned a verdict of $2,500 in plaintiff's favor. Upon motion for judgment n.o.v., the court en banc set aside the verdict and judgment was entered for defendant company. This, however, was reversed by the Superior Court and judgment was there entered for plaintiff on the verdict. An appeal to this Court was then allowed.
On June 20, 1937, at about eleven o'clock P.M., plaintiff was operating the automobile of his friend and fellow-passenger, accompanied also by two young ladies, south on Sixth Avenue and north of the crossing of that thoroughfare and Forbes Street. This is a heavily-travelled intersection through which traffic passes to enter the Liberty Bridge leading to the Tubes. Sixth Avenue for some distance north of Forbes Street is wide enough to accommodate three lanes of traffic travelling in a southerly direction. When the automobile came to this intersection, the traffic light was red against him, so plaintiff drove the machine to the right and stopped near the westerly curb of Sixth Avenue. Immediately the automobiles proceeding in the same direction in the other two lanes of traffic to plaintiff's left drew up along side of his car and also stopped. When the traffic signal changed to green, plaintiff and the drivers of the cars in the other lanes started to cross Forbes Street. The operators of the machines to plaintiff's left seeing a street car of defendant company approaching from the east on Forbes Street at great speed and about to enter the intersection in violation of the traffic signal, and realizing that they would be struck if they continued, stopped suddenly. Plaintiff, who was to the right of the other two lanes of traffic and could not see the street car because automobiles in the other lanes were between him and the street car, was struck, causing the injuries for which this suit was brought.
The negligence of defendant company is practically admitted, as well it might be. The testimony establishes that the motorman was negligent in not having the street car under control at the crossing, as is demonstrated by the fact that after the collision the street car carried plaintiff's machine westwardly on Forbes Street a distance of approximately fifty or sixty feet before throwing it to one side, and that then the street car continued for about one hundred feet before being brought to a stop. The contention of defendant, however, is that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, in that he drove into the intersection when his view to the left was obstructed and that therefore he did not see the street car until the collision was inevitable. Bearing in mind that the testimony must be read, under these circumstances, in the light most advantageous to plaintiff (Galliano v. East Penn Electric Co., 303 Pa. 498, 508), and that it is only in a case where contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff is so clearly revealed that fair and reasonable individuals could not disagree as to its existence, that it may be declared judicially (Altomari v. Kruger, 325 Pa. 235, 240), we are satisfied from a most careful study of the record that this is not such a case and that the question of negligence had to be submitted.
Plaintiff's view to the east was entirely obstructed by the automobiles to his left while he waited for...
To continue reading
Request your trial