Simpson v. Jones
| Citation | 284 Pa. 596,131 A. 541 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | 143 |
| Parties | Simpson et ux., Appellants, v. Jones |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Argued October 8, 1925
Appeal, No. 143, March T., 1925, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C.P. Allegheny Co., July T., 1923, No. 824, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of James Simpson et ux. v. William J Jones. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before SWEARINGEN, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Directed verdict for defendant on which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, direction for defendant, quoting record.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
O. K Eaton, for appellants.
Charles F. Patterson, for appellee.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Plaintiffs sued to recover damages for injury sustained by the upsetting of an automobile in which they were riding as invited guests of defendant and his family. Binding instructions for defendant were given by the court below and plaintiffs appealed.
The facts in the case are undisputed. Defendant, the owner and driver of the car, invited plaintiffs to ride with him and his family to visit mutual friends. The car had just rounded a curve in the road at a speed of 25 miles an hour, which plaintiffs concede was not excessive under the circumstances. A short distance beyond the curve was located a culvert, the sides of which were guarded by piers, the distance between the monuments representing the entire width of the roadway approximately 35 feet. The highway was at the time free of vehicles at this point. Defendant was driving near the center of the roadway and, as he reached the culvert, attempted to swing his automobile to the right. The roadway was slightly crowned, making a slope from the center to either side and as defendant turned to the right the rear of the car "started to roll to the left and struck the pier." In explaining further, defendant testified, "The car started to turn over by skidding to the left and the rear end struck the pier and threw it [the car] back and before I could swing the car, it went over the bank." Plaintiffs testified the car increased its speed after striking the pier and, in explanation of this, defendant stated that possibly his foot was unintentionally placed on the accelerator and the car forced to the opposite side of the road and over the bank before he had "by any possible chance" time to apply the brakes. Plaintiffs further testified the "whole thing" happened suddenly, "all in an instant," or in "a very short fraction of a second" and that "there wasn't any time...
To continue reading
Request your trial