Renner v. Tone

• Decision Date: 03 January 1922
• Docket Number: 209,208
• Citation: 273 Pa. 10,116 A. 512
• Parties: Renner et al., Appellants, v. Tone et al., Receivers
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

116 A. 512

273 Pa. 10

Renner et al., Appellants, v. Tone et al., Receivers

Nos. 208, 209

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 3, 1922

Argued October 19, 1921

Appeals, Nos. 208 and 209, Oct. T., 1921, by plaintiffs, from order of C.P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1920, No. 35, refusing to take off nonsuit, in case of Earl S. Renner, a minor, by his father William J. Renner, and William J. Renner, in his own right, v. S. L. Tone et al., Receivers of Pittsburgh Rys Co. Affirmed.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before DREW, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned was order refusing to take off nonsuit, quoting it.

Judgment affirmed.

Edmund K. Trent, of Prichard & Trent, for appellants. -- The case was for the jury: Minnich v. Transit Co., 267 Pa. 200; Beck v. Director General, 268 Pa. 571.

William A. Challener, with him Clarence Burleigh, for appellee.

Before FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE KEPHART:

Earl Renner, aged nineteen, and his brother, were invited to ride to their home on a small Ford truck. Earl stood on the running board, as the truck was too small to permit him to be seated in the car. The driver of the truck kept his vehicle on the left side (the wrong side) of the street for a distance of 1,140 feet, -- from the time the boys got on the car until he attempted to cross to the side where he should have traveled. During this time there was nothing to prevent the boys or the driver from observing the traffic approaching, and, for a distance of 450 feet before the accident occurred, it is clear there was nothing to obstruct the vision. Within this space the driver had ample room and time to place his car out of danger, by traveling on the side of the street where it should have been. But he waited until within a few feet of some approaching traffic, when suddenly, without warning, he swung his car toward the right side of the street and was instantly struck by a street car coming behind him. Plaintiff saw the street car some distance away, at a time when the auto was traveling about twenty miles an hour, and when the driver attempted to cross to the right side the street car was about one hundred feet away, as plaintiff states, though the front part of the truck was struck just as it reached the rails of the track. As a result of the collision with the street car, the truck was thrown against a huckster wagon proceeding on its own side of the street.

Plaintiff as the guest of the driver, was equally responsible with him for the accident (...