Robinson v. Township of Logan
| Decision Date | 03 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | 214-1926 |
| Citation | 90 Pa.Super. 139 |
| Parties | Robinson, Appellant, v. Township of Logan |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 26, 1926
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of C. P. Blair County-1925, No 56, in the case of Isaac Robinson v. The Township of Logan.
Trespass to recover damages to an automobile. Before Baldrige, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court entered a compulsory non-suit. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the refusal of plaintiff's motion to take off the compulsory non-suit.
R. A Henderson, for appellant.
No appearance and no printed brief for appellee.
Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Cunningham, JJ.
The plaintiff's action is for compensation for injury to his automobile, resulting, as alleged, from the negligence of the defendant in permitting an obstruction to remain in the public highway. The car was in charge of a young man named Loy, who while driving at a speed of from 15 to 20 miles an hour on a night in October, met a car going in the opposite direction. The light of the latter car blinded the driver of the plaintiff's car and in his movement to pass the oncoming car, he drove in to the ditch at his right where the car came in contact with the branches of a tree which had been cut down in an adjoining field sometime before. It is not alleged that there was not a sufficient roadway for the passage of automobiles at the place where the accident took place, or that if the car had been driven along the right side of the road it could not have passed without coming in contact with the tree top. A case is presented therefore where a view of the road being prevented by the blinding light of the other car, the plaintiff's driver took the chance of going on at a fairly rapid speed without seeing where he was going. Of such driving it was well said by Justice Schaffer in Wilhelm v. Sunbury & S. Ry. Co., 281 Pa. 69, 126 A. 191: " He could not proceed without having a sufficient view of the track in front of him to safeguard those who might be forced to use it, and it could not be said that he discharged his duty in this respect if he proceeded, although blinded by the lights of approaching automobiles; so advancing he was in no different position than he would have been had he gone on with his eyes shut." Witnesses for the plaintiff testified that the tree top did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edward Steele v. A. A. Fuller
... ... 155, 62 A. L. R. 1528; Downing v ... Baucom's Admx., 216 Ky. 108, 287 S.W. 362; ... Robinson v. Logan Township, 90 Pa.Super ... 139. In some of these cases, the facts were similar to those ... ...
-
Fordyce v. White Star Bus Lines
... ... 517; Conboy v ... Osage Tribe No. 113, 288 Pa. 193; Wilhelm v ... Ry., 281 Pa. 69; Robinson v. Twp., 90 Pa.Super ... Before ... FRAZER, C.J., WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART and ... ...
-
Hoffman v. Herman
...more than ordinarily alert in view of the heavy traffic and extraordinary conditions that existed on the bridge. We held in Robinson v. Logan Twp., 90 Pa.Super. 139, that the court was correct in sustaining the verdict of jury, finding the defendant guilty of negligence in driving off the r......
-
Mars v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co
...fact that he knew and had a right to expect pedestrians to be on or near the track in front of him: Wilhelm v. Ry., 281 Pa. 69; Robinson v. Twp., 90 Pa.Super. 139; Algard v. Transit Co., 266 Pa. 390; Foster v. & Light Co., 100 A. 833. Defendant's car killed deceased: Davis v. Davis, 80 Pa.S......