delivered the opinion of the court.
On December 6, 1950, John J. Cunningham, plaintiff, was struck and injured by an automobile owned and operated by Wallace Danner, defendant. The accident occurred on Park avenue at its intersection with Corprew avenue in the city of Norfolk, between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m.
Park avenue at the point of accident is 35.3 feet wide and runs generally north and south. Corprew avenue extends generally in an easterly-westerly direction.
Plaintiff, on his way to work, was walking to catch a bus. The bus stop was on the west side of Park avenue approximately 140 feet south of the intersection. When plaintiff reached the southeast corner of the intersection he observed an automobile to his left as he faced Park avenue. This automobile was approximately 200 feet from him and was proceeding in his direction, traveling north on Park avenue. He also saw the defendant’s car approximately 300 feet to his right, proceeding south, in his direction. The bus which plaintiff intended to board was observed behind defendant’s car proceeding in the same direction. The two automobiles and the bus appeared to be traveling at moderate speeds.
Plaintiff walked from the southeast corner of the intersection to the center of Park avenue. The car approaching from his left, going north, passed behind him. When he reached the center of the street plaintiff temporarily stopped and observed defendant’s car approaching on his right (north). The car was not traveling fast and was approximately 80 feet away when plaintiff continued to cross the remaining half of the avenue. He had reached a point 12 feet from the western curb when he again looked at defendant’s car, and seeing that it was not going to stop, he quickened his pace to get across and was struck by the side of the right front bumper. At this time he was within five feet of the west curb. His body came to rest within 1½ or 2 feet of the curb.
*144 Defendant admitted that he did not see plaintiff nntil he appeared immediately in front of him at which time he was too close to turn left and avoid the accident. It is not claimed that any obstruction prevented defendant from seeing plaintiff.
The evidence disclosed that at the time of the impact the car was five feet from the west side of Park avenue, the immediate destination of the plaintiff.
Defendant contended in the trial court that (1) The evidence fails to show any negligence on his part which proximátely caused the accident ; and (2) In any event, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law which bars his right of recovery.
The contention of the plaintiff was that these defenses were factual matters to be determined by a jury under proper instructions.
The case was tried and submitted to the jury upon the issues thus raised and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was, over the objection and exception of the defendant, approved by the trial judge, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict the defendant appeals.
The jury’s verdict convicts the defendant of negligence and under the court’s instructions the verdict established the fact that the accident happened at the intersection of the two avenues. The jury was instructed that if the accident did not happen at an'intersection ‘ ‘ then you shall find for the defendant ’ ’.
The point stressed in defendant’s brief and in oral argument before us is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Under the circumstances of this case the plaintiff had the right of way over the defendant’s automobile. Va. Code, 1950, §§ 46-243 and 46-244. He had the right to assume that the defendant would respect this right and yield the way to him. It was a question of fact for the jury to determine as to whether or not the plaintiff exercised reasonable care for his own safety as he attempted to cross at this intersection.
The contention that when plaintiff stopped in the center of Park Avenue to observe approaching traffic, this led defendant to believe he would remain in this place of safety, is untenable under the facts and circumstances presented here. The *145 defendant nowhere contends that he saw plaintiff stop in the center of the street. He, in fact, admits that he was not looking and only saw the plaintiff when he was right in front of him, immediately before the impact. At this time plaintiff was within a few feet of his destination, the western curb of Park avenue. Clearly the stopping of the plaintiff under these circumstances could not have misled the defendant.
A case with facts very similar to those under consideration is
Bethea
v.
Virginia Elec., etc.,
“If they were crossing the street at the proper place, they had the right of way during the entire crossing, that is, from one side of the street to the other. As we said in Lucas v. Craft,161 Va. 228 ,170 S. E. 836 , ‘At intersecting streets where there are neither traffic lights nor traffic officers, the pedestrian has a superior is, the right to cross from one side of the street to the other in preference or priority over vehicles— and drivers of vehicles must respect this right and yield the right of way to the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s right of way extends from one side of the street to the other. It does not begin at any particular point in the intersection nor does it end at any particular point. It begins on one side of the street and extends until the pedestrian has negotiated the crossing.’
“According to the evidence for the plaintiff, when he and his companion started across the street the bus was some ‘two bus lengths’ to the east of Wide street, or approximately seventy feet from the pedestrian crossing which they were using, and was approaching, as the plaintiff said, at a ‘moderate speed’. It wás for the jury to say whether an ordinarily prudent person would have undertaken to have crossed in front of the vehicle under the circumstances stated.
“Neither was it necessary for the plaintiff to have looked continuously at the approaching bus as he crossed. Sawyer v. Blankenship,160 Va. 651 , 657,169 S. E. 551 , 553; Virginia Elec., etc., Co. v. Steinman,177 Va. 468 , 474, 475,14 S. E. (2d) 313 , 315, and authorities there cited. If he was crossing at a proper place, the plaintiff had the legal right to assume that the driver would give him the right of way, a right which the drivers of motor vehicles too often overlook. Whether the plaintiff was *146 exercising a reasonable lookout for Ms safety as be crossed tbe street was a question for tbe jury.”
In
Rhoades
v.
Meadows,
“We tbink tbe evidence also presented a jury question on whether tbe plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. It has to be measured by tbe familiar rule that tbe question is for tbe jury unless.tbe evidence is such that there should be no difference in tbe judgment of reasonable men as to tbe proper inferences to be drawn from it. Hoover v. Neff & Son,183 Va. 56 , 62-63,31 S. E. (2d) 265 , 268; Edgerton v. Norfolk Southern Bus Corp.,187 Va. 642 , 651,47 S. E. (2d) 409 , 415; Hooker v. Hancock,188 Va. 345 , 355,49 S. E. (2d) 711 , 715.
í < rights of pedestrians and of motorists to use tbe highways are equal, and their duties are mutual and reciprocal, except in places where favored positions are assigned to one or tbe other by tbe law. Tbe pedestrian is not required to await tbe passing of all automobiles that be sees coming. If so, he might spend most of bis life on tbe side of tbe road. His duty is to await tbe passing of those which are approaching so near or at such rate of speed that a person exercising reasonable care for bis own safety would not attempt to cross. Core v. Wilhelm,124 Va. 150 ,98 S. E. 27 .”
And Mr. Justice Miller very recently had this to say in
Reese
v.
Snelson,
“Entitled as plaintiff was to the right of way, we cannot say that, after leaving tbe center of Broad street on bis course towards tbe curb, be was negligent as a matter of law in failing to look again for tbe approaching car before be did. When be paused in tbe center of tbe street, it appeared to him to be half a block away and be thereupon undertook to traverse tbe southern half of tbe street. He looked to bis right when be bad walked about two-thirds of tbe distance towards tbe south curb. To require bim to keep constant watch of tbe oncoming cars under penalty of being convicted of contributory negligence as a matter of law, would be to demand more than reasonable care under tbe circumstances and deprive plaintiff of tbe benefits of tbe statute.”
“The question as to whether a pedestrian, who is struck *147 by an automobile or other motor vehicle, at or near a regular street crossing, or -at a place customarily used as a crossing, exercised proper care, or has been guilty of contributory negligence which will defeat his recovery for injuries sustained by such collision, is almost invariably one for the jury.” 2 Blashfield Cyc. of Automobile Law, page 1020.
The jury in this case, under proper instructions, found that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. This finding has been approved by the able trial judge and under these circumstances the case of the plaintiff occupies a strong position in this court.
Oney
v.
Jamison,
Eor the reasons assigned the judgment is
Affirmed.