*1 Merkel v. Janiszewski, Appellant. September 1955.
Argued Before P. J., Rhodes, JJ. Hirt, Ross, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, (Gun- absent). J., ther, I. him Matten &
Robert for Gottorn, Matten, аppellant. R. for Eves, appellee.
George November J., 1955: Hirt, from inter- action for damages resulting found motor the jury section collision of two vehicles аpplication plaintiff. com- of settled law for the judgment pels favor reversal entry judgment defendant n.o.v. for the *2 testimony positive the col- as how Plaintiff’s own nеgligence contributory him of convicts lision occurred recovery barring by him. Februаry early clear a 1953, 12,
In the afternoon driving dry day, truck west- a Chevrolet was Reading. City dly As оn Robeson Street war approached a Street, at Tenth stoppеd the front truck his do at the bound to because wheels curb, stop sign intersec- eаst of the a on Robeson Street point view tion. From that he had an unobstructed Tеnth and both to the north and to the south on Street right. There looked first to his left and then tо his no the defend- northbound traffic but he observed was traveling southwardly in Tenth to- ant’s cаr Street ward Robeson saw it was Street, about 250 feet north of the intersection. With nоtice car the defendant he proceeded nevertheless the intersection and he tes- into tified that he did not look to until after he heard the screеch defendant’s brakes. He then passed directly in middle line of Tenth Street front of dеfendant’s car in the and a collision intersection, There was inevitable. cаn be no doubt as to the fail- unequivocal testimony ure of under his own for southbound traffic on Tenth reaching Street before the middle of the intersection.1 1 testified, “Q. Now, yon He on cross-examination: I believe examination, question, on direct testifiеd answer Mr. Woerle’s you coming your right Mr. that after Janiszewski’s car down street, you you аgain started out and didn’t see him until after you right. Q. were hit. A. Is that correct? And that was you right? hadn’t Is thаt A. Not after
73 a of the driver of vehi of care degree required he questionеd. intersection can no longer cle a street lead A. a Pa. 178 217, 6, v. 318 Riley McNaughеr, of the driver the care required involving rule a through highway, automobile “An automobile enunciated in this language: to cross when about does not do his whole duty, moving then оne look and by taking another highway, crossing, He continue to look while forward. must And сontributory failure so to negligence.” a do is Transp. Co., Court Supreme then Presi 46 A. 2d quоting Keller, 151 Pa. Superior in Freedman v. dent Judge, Ziccardi, . it is the duty Ct. 30 A. 2d said: “‘. . 159, 162, two-way the driver *3 is then to his right. to look to his left traffic com he the lane in first enters which If nothing ap from his is he sеes traveling. left of to a source likely prove that be proaching would nеars the mid but as he danger may him, proceed, the it duty dle is street, from that lane cоming
before into the traffic entering ” Plaintiff the intersection entering direction.’ “. to all vehi way the . . of the duty yielding in either direction on such through cles approaсhing that so far advance the exercise unless highway, justified reasonable care and prudence that he ahead of the approaching could сross believing . . . The rule has vehicle without collision danger that duty been stated is the the frequently not to look before en highway only entering through but to continue to loоk as he advances and tering, his car under such control that can at keep stop left the curb. You hadn’t Is A. That Q. that correct? right.” is Tuchey, any Mellott v. collision”: moment and avoid a 2d 38 A. 40; 350 Transp. supra. course one who looks as Of
Co., two-way highway approaches but can the middle of pres plaintiff stop negligent as thе not is blindly looking, into the without drove ent who, by approaching path the defend аnt.
Clearly chargeable with contribu- tory negligence as a matter does not law; record any conclusion. other admit Judgment and here entered for the revеrsed defend- ant n.o.v. J.: Concurring Woodside,
I concur in the result. think the contributory negligence guilty of not because he failed take a look” before “second middlе relatively line but street, narrow because after seeing the defendant’s vehicle on a stop he entered the intersection from a not he did have time to clear ahead of the vehicle which on through street.
Campbell Unemployment Compensation Case.