66 Pa. Super. 304 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1917
Opinion by
The automobiles of the parties collided at the intersection of two roads. The plaintiff was approaching at the rate of 15 miles an hour. His view of the intersecting road was obscured by a corn field. As he came near the road he saw the defendant’s auto approaching. He stated that if he had put on his brakes his car would have stopped at the center of the intersection and a collision with the approaching car would have been unavoidable. To escape this he put on speed trying to pass ahead of the other car, but failed in his attempt, and the damages which are the subject of this action ensued. As the plaintiff’s chauffeur could not see up the road until he got to the corner or near to it, he should have kept his car under such control as would allow him to stop in order to avoid a collision with the car coming at right angles. The speed he was using required seven to eight feet in which to stop the car, and as he could not see until he was near the corner he took his chances. The sight of the transverse road being obscured, special caution in approaching it was required, and the plaintiff when he approached the road under such speed as prevented his stopping in order to avoid the approaching car or at least veer out of its path, was guilty of negligence: Ellison v. Atlantic Refining Co., 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 370. It was certainly his,duty to look upon entering the road, and when he had placed himself in such position that the look would do him no good, he had failed in his duty. The argument that at the time of the collision the plaintiff had by his increased speed reached the right or west side of the intersecting road where he had a right to be,
Negligence must be determined by all the circumstances, and taking the plaintiff’s own version of the affair her driver was guilty of contributory negligence in entering the street the way he did.'
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.