5 A.2d 224 | Pa. | 1939
Appellant with his family was driving at the rate of twenty to twenty-five miles per hour on a road fourteen feet in width with berms measuring two feet on each *238 side. Approaching a sharp right curve with the view obstructed, he slowed down to about fifteen miles per hour, and, on negotiating the curve, was confronted by appellee's truck less than sixty feet away, occupying the center of the road instead of its own side. Due to the narrowness of the road and the width of appellee's vehicle, appellant was unable to pass, and a violent collision resulted some fifty feet beyond the curve. The jury resolved all questions in appellant's favor, but the court below held appellant guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, stating "It was his duty to so drive his car that when he turned the curve he could stop it within that distance necessary to avoid a collision with what might suddenly loom up in front of him in the road after he had come around the curve."
This conclusion was based upon the doctrine of Cormican etal. v. Menke et al.,
Appellant was not under a duty to anticipate that the driver of a vehicle coming in the opposite direction around the curve would occupy the center of the highway in violation of the law of the road.2 As stated in Shellenberger et al. v. ReadingTransportation Co.,
Moreover, even if the doctrine of "assured clear distance ahead" were applicable to these facts, appellant would not be foreclosed thereby. There is no evidence *240
that his "assured clear distance ahead" was shorter than sixty feet, and the doctrine does not require him to be able to stop within a shorter distance. Since the truck was approaching him at a substantial rate of speed and the collision resulted fifty feet from the curve, it can not be held as a matter of law that appellant was driving at such a rate of speed as would not enable him to stop at a distance of sixty feet. The question of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury. It was likewise for that body to determine whether the truck driver's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. In view of the verdict, the argument that the causal connection was broken by appellant's intervening negligence fails. SeeGoldschmidt et ux. v. Schumann et al.,
The position of the vehicles after the accident does not under the circumstances render appellant's version of the collision incredible. The rule as to incontrovertible physical facts is applicable only where the facts are positive, clear, indisputable and certain.4 Here the location of the vehicles was disputed and not at all free from doubt. Moreover, even from the position of the cars, it is quite possible that the accident could happen as the jury believed. See Czarniecki v.Jesse C. Stewart Co.,
Judgment reversed and here entered for appellant on the verdict unless the court below reinstates the motion for new trial within ten days.