Rich v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1947
• Docket Number: 3053
• Parties: Rich, Appellant, v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

53 A.2d 725

357 Pa. 318

Rich, Appellant, v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc

No. 3053

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 30, 1947

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Argued May 28, 1947

Appeal, No. 108, Jan. T., 1947, from judgment of C.P., Cumberland Co., Feb. T., 1945, No. 66, in case of Paul A. Rich v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused August 4, 1947.

Trespass for personal injuries.

The facts are stated in the opinion, by REESE, P.J., of the court below, as follows:

This action in trespass was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of a collision of a tractor-trailer driven by him with a tractor-trailer owned by the defendant company. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant's motions for judgment n.o.v. and for a new trial are now before us.

On the motion for judgment n.o.v., the testimony should not only be read in the light most advantageous to the plaintiff, all conflicts therein being resolved in his favor, but he must be given the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence: Welch v. Sultez, 388 Pa. 583, 590; and on such a motion the plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence supporting his verdict considered, and all the rest rejected: Ashworth v. Hannum, 347 Pa. 393, 395. So viewing the evidence, it reveals the following facts:

On January 19, 1943, at about 4:30 a.m. the plaintiff, forty-six years of age, was driving a Mack tractor, with a Fruehauf trailer attached, northwardly on U.S. Highway No. 11, enroute from New Cumberland to Williamsport. Rain was falling and the highway was wet. About one-half mile north of the village of Enola, the highway is three lanes in width, the center lane being macadam and the outer two lanes being concrete. The accident occurred approximately at the low point between two hills of slight grade. The plaintiff, driving north, had descended a grade and the defendant's equipment, proceeding south, had descended the other grade. The highway at this point is immediately west of and slightly higher than the Enola railroad yards of the Pennsylvania Railroad which lie between the highway and the Susquehanna River.

As the plaintiff neared the scene of the accident, descending the grade aforesaid, he was enveloped in a cloud or bank of smoke and steam from the railroad yards. He braked his equipment, slowed down to a speed of approximately five miles per hour and, using the guard rail posts on his right as a guide, proceeded forward. He drove approximately six or eight truck-lengths through the cloud of smoke and steam, after which it cleared away, and while in the cloud of smoke and steam was unable to see anything ahead of him. Inasmuch as his equipment was approximately 35 feet in length, the distance traveled through the cloud of smoke and steam was from 210 to 280 feet.

After emerging from the smoke and steam, he drove four to six truck lengths, or from 140 to 210 feet, entirely free of any smoke or steam. During this interval, he testified that he could see the road ahead to a point beyond where the accident ultimately happened and nothing was ahead of him on his lane of traffic. He was then enveloped in a second cloud of smoke and steam and again slowed down to five miles per hour and again used the guard rails at his right as a guide and proceeded forward for a distance, which he said was "six outfit lengths," or a distance of 210 feet. At five miles per hour, it would take him approximately 29 seconds to travel 210 feet and during that time, he testified repeatedly that he was unable to see anything whatever ahead of him. After thus traveling for 210 feet, he saw immediately to his left, in the center lane of the highway, what "looked like the rear of a trailer" directly opposite his driver's seat. Upon seeing this object, he applied his brake and turned to his right, moving forward about five or six feet, when he collided with the tractor attached to the trailer on his left. The tractor and trailer with which he collided was in a jack-knifed position, the trailer and tractor forming a "V", with the tractor occupying about three-quarters of the plaintiff's lane of traffic. After the impact the plaintiff's equipment moved forward five or six feet and came to a stop. The impact threw open the left door of the plaintiff's tractor and threw him out, but his right foot was caught and he couldn't free himself. Immediately thereafter both pieces of equipment caught fire and the plaintiff was very badly burned and permanently injured. The plaintiff was entirely familiar with the highway at that point, in both daylight and in dark, and in all kinds of weather, and he had encountered similar clouds of smoke and steam from the railroad yards several times previously.

During his testimony the plaintiff said several times that while he was traveling through the cloud of smoke and steam immediately preceding the accident, for a distance of 210 feet, he was unable to see anything ahead of him and that he did not see the object which he struck at all before the collision, except that he did see the trailer directly to his left.

Section 1002 of the Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, and its amendments, 75 PS 501, provides, inter alia, that "no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway... at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead." The assured clear distance rule has been the law of Pennsylvania for many years. It was established as a common law principle and imbedded in our law by the above statute. Our courts have called it, "the only safe rule": Simrell v. Eschenbach, 303 Pa. 156, 160; "inflexible": Gaber v. Weinberg, 324 Pa. 385, 387; "fixed and unchangeable": Stark v. Fullerton Trucking Co., 318 Pa. 541, 544; the statute has been applied in many cases as requiring judgment n.o.v. against operators of vehicles who have driven into obstructions on the highway, regardless of the negligence of the person who created the hazard. The rule has been applied to hold plaintiffs guilty of contributory negligence for having driven into obstacles on the highway when their range of vision was shortened by fog: Lauerman v. Strickler, 141 Pa.Super. 240; Cormican v. Menke, 306 Pa. 156; Shoffner v. Schmerin, 316 Pa. 323; "by rain and fog"; Mason v. Lavine, Inc., 302 Pa. 472; "by fog, mist and ice"; Janeway v. Lafferty Bros., 323 Pa. 324; "by snow": Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Co., 333 Pa. 424; "by a curve in the road": Gaber v. Weinberg, 324 Pa. 385; Simrell v. Eschenbach, 303 Pa. 156. In all of these cases it was held it is unavailing for the plaintiff to say that he had no reason to expect the obstruction in the highway.

In the present case it appears by the plaintiff's own testimony that he drove "six outfit lengths", or 210 feet in a bank of smoke and steam at five miles an hour, or for approximately 29 seconds in time, was unable to see anything whatever ahead of him, and did not see the defendant's equipment until he had driven past part of it and never saw the part of the defendant's equipment with which he collided. In our opinion, this was clearly such a situation as the appellate courts had in mind when they said, "fog may be so dense on the highway that to proceed at any rate of speed is imprudent": Shoffner v. Schmerin, 316 Pa. 323, 326; Lauerman v. Strickler, 141 Pa.Super. 240, 243.

The assured clear distance rule requires that a driver keep his vehicle under such control that he can always stop within the distance that he can clearly see. What this distance will be will vary according to the visibility...