Opinion by
Geraldine Roberts Haines, while operating her automobile in a southwesterly direction on the New Freе-port Road, came into collision with a truck.
Harold Dulaney was awarded a contract by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways, to build a new bridge and approaches to the road. Dulaney sub-cоn *610 tracted the stone basing and blacktopping for the approaches to defendant, C. S. Yodеr. Yoder contracted with the defendant, Joseph Dnrsa, to haul andesite to the job site. Dursa contrаcted with defendant, Lawrence Hinckle, who furnished a dump truck which was operated on the day of thе accident by defendant, Riley .Crawford Harn.
On the day of the accident, employees of C. S. Yoder hаd placed amiesite in a trench across the road, and three to five men were raking the blacktop at the time appellant approached on the New Freeport Road from Jоlly town. Defendant Harn had parked his truck on the road, waiting for the blacktopping equipment to be mоved into position. The greater portion of the truck was parked on the berm to appellant’s left.
Defendant Donald A. Pinelli’s truck, driven by Charles Roy Dean, was proceeding toward Jolly town on the New Frеeport Road, and because the trench was being covered with blacktop, it was necessary for him to stop his truck alongside the Hinckle truck. The two trucks thus occupied virtually all of the 15-foot wide surfаce of the road, leaving no room for any other vehicle to proceed. Mrs. Haines aрproached this scene around a sharp curve to her right, on New Freeport Road. This curve, tоgether with the topography of the road, renders it impossible for motorists traversing the curve in either direction to determine what is on the other side, of the curve until they are well within the curve. Mrs. Haines testified that when she came around the curve at a speed of approximately 30 m.p.h. and came uрon the trucks parked on the highway, she panicked and ran into the Hinckle truck, thereby sustaining personal injuries and property damage. She and her husband, Victor F. Haines, filed a suit against the various defendants to recover damages. 1
*611 At the conclusion of plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted defendants’ mоtion for compulsory nonsuit. Plaintiffs’ motion to take off the nonsuit was denied, and this appeal followеd.
The court below determined that since Mrs. Haines admitted that her visibility was extremely limited in making the turn, she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in operating at a speed greater than would pеrmit her to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. 2
Mrs. Haines had testified: “Wеll, I knew that this road was under construction, but I thought it had been finished, . . . and there was a very severe curve there, and there were bushes and rocks protruding out at this curve, and I couldn’t see the road leading to New Free-port, but I didn’t expect it to be blocked.”
In
Schwab v. Oesterling & Son, Inc.,
*612 Appellants contended that the assured clear distance rule should not apply, inasmuch as Mrs. Haines was confronted by a sudden emergency. The court below effectively rebuts that contention in its opinion as follows: “The sudden emergency, if any in this case, arose from the fact that Geraldine Roberts Haines was operating her automobile at too great a speed to enable her to stop before crashing into the truck, or she was not paying proper attention to the rоadway which the existing conditions required. There were no moving objects, such as dust clouds, blinding lights, sudden blocking of the roadway or sudden swerving of other vehicles, in fact, there was no other object in motion than her automobile.”
In
Gaber v. Weinberg,
Judgment affirmed.