Opinion by
In the early evening of November 29, 1959, on Route 19 some five miles northeast of Greensburg,
*487
Pennsylvania, there was a collision between motor vehicles traveling in opposite directions and operated, respectively, by Mary L. O’Neil and Howard E. Wolf. Kathlеen T. O’Neil was a passenger in the car operated by her sister, Mary, and received serious injuries in the collision. Kathleen and her father, James M. O’Neil, instituted a trespass action against Mary which resulted in a verdict for Kathleen in the sum of |5,000.00, and a verdict for James in the sum of $2,-437.98. Kathleen filed a motion for a new trial which was subsequently abandoned. Mary filed a motion for judgment n.o.v. which wаs denied by the court below. This appeal followed.
1
We must view tbn evidence in the light most favorable to the winners of the verdicts:
Costello v. Wyss, Inc.,
The record discloses that Mary was an employe in the office of admissions at Seton Hill College. She was traveling from Binghаmton, New York, to Greens-burg in an automobile owned by the college. Her sister Kathleen and two other girls, all three students at the сollege, were accompanying Mary on their return to school after Thanksgiving vacation. Mary was an inexperienсed driver, having had an operator’s license for only two months. The party left Binghamton after breakfast. The weather was “snоwy, possibly rain mixed with snow”. The car was not equipped with chains or snow treads. A stop was made in Altoona for dinner at about six о’clock in the evening.. At that time the operator of a car traveling from Pittsburgh to Syracuse via Altoona volunteered thе information that the road between Altoona and Pittsburgh had become very, dangerous. The party proceeded west on Route 22 to New Alexandria where a turn *488 south was made on Route 119. According to Kathleen’s testimony, the road conditions had bеen “very bad, very icy”. Her sister Mary was nervous and tense. Kathleen suggested stopping for a cup of coffee and a few minutes of relaxation, but Mary “just wanted to get back”. The road surface on Route 118 was wet with patches of ice. The cаr failed to properly negotiate a right turn, and proceeded in the wrong or northbound lane and collided head-on with thе Wolf car. In the words of Judge Keim : “It is apparent that the car in which Kathleen T. O’Neil was riding skidded into the opposite lane of traffic, however, it is not clear whether the skidding took place before or after the oncoming automobile was sightеd by defendant driver, and whether the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding applied her brakes before or after reaching the icy spot. The only testimony in so far as applying the brakes is concerned, was what the defendant, Mary L. O’Neil told the plaintiff . . ; 'thаt after the car hit the ice, she apparently applied her brakes, which threw the car into a skid and sent it into the othеr lane’ ”.
According to the statement of the question involved on this appeal, it is the contention of Mary’s counsel that Kаthleen and her father did not make out a case of negligence because their own evidence established that Mary “was proceeding at a proper speed on her own side of a wet road and while obeying all the rules of the highway came upon a patch of ice on the roadway which caused her to skid into the other lane”. The gist of appellant’s contention is that “the plaintiffs’ proof showed conclusively that the accident did in fact result from the skidding of the defеndant’s vehicle”. While the case of
Richardson v. Patterson,
“One who operates a motor vehicle on the wrong, side of the highway is primа facie negligent, and .that fact alone is sufficient to carry the case to the; jury . . . In the case at Bar, the defense was that the presence of Early’s motor vehicle on the wrong side of the highway was due to skidding.^ It has been held that skidding in and of itself is not evidence of negligence . . . However, the operator of a motor vehicle is bound to take into account the condition of the highway . . . and skidding may be and frequently is the result of negligence . . . Thus the question of negligence in skidding cases becomes an' issue of fact for the jury”.
Any doubt as to the present attitude of our . Supreme Court on the problem was removed by the oрinion of Mr. Justice Eagen in
Matkevich v. Robertson,
Before concluding, it may be appropriate to note that, in the prеsentation of their case, Kathleen and her father did not rely solely on Mary’s presence in the wrong lane. There was evidence, inter alia, concerning Mary’s inexperience as an operator, as to her knowledge of the dangеrous condition of the highway, and as to the absence of chains. Cf.
Benn v. Brown,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
As there were two verdicts, there should have been two. judgments and two appeals. However, this procedural discrepancy is not material in view of our disposition of the ease.