178 A. 6 | Pa. | 1935
Lead Opinion
As the result of a collision between an automobile owned and being operated by plaintiff's husband and another automobile, owned and being operated by defendant, plaintiff's husband was so severely injured that he died a short time thereafter. Alleging that the collision was due to the negligence of defendant, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her minor children, sued to recover damages from him. These the jury awarded to her, and the trial judge having refused defendant's motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for a new trial, and *219 judgment having being entered on the verdict at his express direction, defendant prosecuted the present appeal. As we are clearly of opinion that the evidence shows the collision would not have happened if plaintiff's husband had not been contributorily negligent in the operation of his car, we shall confine ourselves to this point alone, also limiting ourselves, in the statement of the facts, to those which bear upon the question of contributory negligence.
The accident happened about midday of August 19, 1932, at the intersection of the Lincoln Highway and the Carlisle-Hanover Turnpike at Cross Keys in Adams County in this State. Plaintiff's husband's car was moving northward on the turnpike, and defendant's car was moving eastward on the highway. When her husband was nearly at the intersection, plaintiff says he stopped the car, looked in both directions and then moved forward. His view westwardly along the highway was, at that point, obscured by a house, some trees and a telegraph pole, located at the southwest corner of the two roads. These so obstructed his view in that direction, that he could see only about 75 feet. This he knew for he had traveled over the crossing for fifteen years. As he moved forward the first part of the highway to which he would come was that over which traffic moved from west to east, that is from the direction as to which his vision was thus obscured, and from which defendant's car approached. As he neared the highway, the house, trees and pole obstructed his vision less and less, and he could see further and further westwardly along the highway, until, when he reached its southernmost line, he could see 700 to 800 feet in that direction.
An automobile driver does not do his whole duty, when about to cross another highway, by taking one look and then moving forward. He must continue to look while crossing, and a failure so to do is contributory negligence: Byrne et al. v. Schultz,
This conclusion is emphasized in the instant case by section 1014 (c) of the Vehicle Code, as amended by section 2 of the Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 751, 797, which provides that "The driver of a vehicle entering a through highway . . . which has been established as such under the provisions of this act, shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either direction on such through highway." The Lincoln Highway was such a through highway, and was so marked at its intersection with the Carlisle-Hanover Turnpike, where this accident happened.
When, then, plaintiff's husband approached the intersection he knew that motorists on the highway had the right of way, and could operate their cars in reliance upon that legal right. This was notice to him to take such additional care before entering the highway, as, in view of that circumstance, was reasonably required for safety, and to continue exercising such care until he had completed the operation of crossing. The least the one crossing could do was to look carefully before entering on the crossing and to continue thus looking until he had completed the crossing.
That plaintiff's husband did not look again, after he started forward, is testified to by plaintiff herself:
"Q. Hadn't you looked to the left again after you started until you were in the center of the intersection [where the collision took place]?
"A. No, only when I saw this car coming towards us, that is what drew my attention when Mr. Riley [her deceased husband] leaned over the wheel."
And again: "Q. Just answer this please: You have testified I think that your husband came up there to the intersection, stopped the car, looked both ways, and then went on? A. That is all he did. Q. Stopped the car, *221 looked to the left and the right and then started across? A. He looked first to the left, then to the right and then started across."
Appellee seems to think that because plaintiff testified that she did not see defendant's car until it was about 25 to 30 feet away, that this shows it was not visible before that time. It rather shows a failure to continue looking. Had her husband attentively looked he could have seen, on that clear midday 700 or 800 feet westwardly along the highway, which was straight for that entire distance, and that extended vision continued the entire time he was driving across the highway. There is no contention that there was any defect in his or her eyesight; hence it is idle to say he looked but did not see it, because if he had attentively looked he must have seen it: Bornseheuer v. Traction Co.,
The court below has a different but an equally inefficacious excuse. It says that plaintiff may recover because section 1014 (c) of the amended Vehicle Code, partially quoted above, further says: "This provision shall not operate to relieve the driver of any vehicle being operated on a through highway from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highway, nor shall it protect the driver of any vehicle on a through highway from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of such right of way." This provision does not operate, however, to give a plaintiff who has been contributorily negligent a right of action he would not otherwise have had. If it did, then a statute which was intended to give additional rights to the driver on a through highway, would take from him rights which he would have had had he been using an ordinary street or road. This is an impossible conclusion under well settled rules of construction.
This view of the case is clearly expressed in Dougherty v. Merchants Baking Co.,
The judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment is here entered for defendant non obstante veredicto.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case and would affirm the judgment of the court below. The majority opinion imposes entirely too high a standard of care upon victims in automobile crossing accidents of this kind — a degree of care which is much higher than that which has been uniformly required by this court in accidents at railroad crossings under circumstances paralleling the circumstances here. This court said in Siever v. Pgh., C., C. St. L. Ry. Co.,
In my judgment, this court should not in automobile crossing
cases, any more than it does in railroad crossing cases, lay down the rule that a victim is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law when by the exercise of thehighest possible degree of care he might have avoided the injury. Such a high degree of care is a standard alien to the administration of justice. As Mr. Justice CARDOZO aptly said, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, in the recent case of Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co.,
It is clear to me that in this case Riley's conduct was that of an ordinarily prudent person. Seeing the white line on the highway as indicating the proper place to stop, he naturally assumed that if he stopped at that point and looked in both directions, he would be able to obtain a view sufficient to assure him that with no vehicle then in sight he could cross the highway before he would be overtaken by any other vehicle going in either direction at a rate of speed sufficient to overwhelm him before he got across. He had a right to assume that any motorist on that highway would proceed at a rate of speed which would be lawful and reasonable near and at an intersection. According to the evidence, when this accident happened, Riley, after stopping at the white line, was proceeding across the Lincoln Highway at the cautious rate of speed of about ten miles an hour, while the defendant, McNaugher, was traveling at a rate of speed described by one witness as "above 40 miles an hour" and by Mrs. Riley as "terrific speed."
All motorists are required by due care to slacken their speed at road intersections. On the other hand, those in charge of railroad trains are not expected to slacken the train's speed at public crossings because to do so would interfere with the railroad's performance of essential public service. For these reasons, a person about to enter a railroad crossing should bemore careful than a person about to enter a main highway crossing for the former has no reason to expect a railroad train's speed to be reduced at public crossings while the latter has every legal and moral right to expect an automobile's speed on any highway to be reduced at public crossings. Section 1014 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Code of 1931, P. L. 751, at 797, declares that "the driver of a vehicle entering a *226 through highway or stop intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching in either direction on such through highway. This provision shall not operate to relieve the driver of any vehicle being operated on a through highway from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highway, nor shall it protect the driver of any vehicle on a through highway from the consequence of an arbitrary exercise of such right of way." Riley did yield "the right of way" when he stopped, and viewed the highway in both directions. The last half of that section is, in my judgment, the more pertinent to this case because Riley's care or want of care must be viewed in the light of allthe attending circumstances and one (and an important one) of the attending circumstances was that under the laws of Pennsylvania it was the duty of defendant in driving his car on this through highway "to drive with due regard for the safety of vehicles [in this case Riley's] entering such through highway," and it was also his (the defendant's) statutory dutynot to exercise his "right of way" arbitrarily (which duty this defendant wholly failed to perform). Riley had every right to assume that the driver of a car coming from the west would see the trees at this intersection heavy with foliage (the date being August 19th) and obviously obscuring the view of a driver situated as Riley was, and that such a driver coming from the west would reduce his speed accordingly.
The majority opinion says: "When plaintiff's husband approached the intersection he knew that motorists on the highway had the right of way, and could operate their cars in reliance upon that legal right." I contend that Riley as well knew that this "legal right" of McNaugher's or anyone else traveling on that highway was qualified by the statutory provision that that right must be exercised not arbitrarily but
"with due regard to the safety of other vehicles entering upon such highway." In Thompson on Negligence, volume II (2d ed.), section *227
1612, that author says: "It is not negligence not to anticipate that another person will be negligent or fail to do his duty. This principle ought to be of peculiar force with reference to the conduct of a person who is driving an instrument of great danger, which may become at railway crossings a mere murder machine, if it is allowed to approach at an excessive or an unlawful rate of speed, or without such signals or warnings as will apprise the traveling public of its coming." An automobile approaching crossings is a much more dangerous "murder machine" than is a locomotive. Locomotives make a loud noise, emit smoke, and, as they approach crossings, their bells are ringing and their loud whistles blowing, while, on the other hand, rubber-tired automobiles are comparatively noiseless, practically smokeless, and most of them do not give any warning, or at least any adequate warning, as they approach crossings. This court said in Weiss v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co.,
The majority opinion says that an automobile driver in crossing another highway "must continue to look while crossing, and a failure so to do is contributory negligence." I think this is imposing entirely too exacting a rule. In the first place, no automobilist attentive to the driving of his car can continue to look long in any one direction unless that direction is forward. Riley, before *228 he entered the crossing, "looked to the left, looked to the right and started off" (as his wife testified). That is exactly what any prudent driver would have done. By the time he looked to the left and to the right, and released his brakes, shifted his gears, and started his car, three seconds could easily have elapsed. The defendant traveling 40 miles an hour would have in three seconds traveled 175 feet. What was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Pokora Case, supra, if for the phrase "a train or a loose engine" there is substituted the word "automobile," would be entirely applicable here. On page 105 of that opinion, Justice CARDOZO makes this statement: "One must remember that while the traveler turns his eyes in one direction, a train or a loose engine may be approaching from the other." Furthermore, in the instant case, it is a legitimate inference from the evidence and from the exhibits that Riley did look toward the west after he reached the highway, saw that the defendant was coming at a high rate of speed and tried to get out of danger. The condition (as revealed by the exhibits) of the two cars that collided, indicates that the defendant when he saw a crash was imminent turned his car to his left and that when the victim saw a crash was imminent he turned his car to his right.
The majority opinion states: "As he [Riley] neared the highway, the house, trees, and pole obstructed his vision less and less, and he could see further and further westwardly along the highway, until, when he reached its southernmost line, he could see 700 to 800 feet in that direction." This statement is apparently based on the testimony of a witness who was asked the following question and made the following answer: "Q. How far to the west of the intersection is the Lincoln Highway straight? A. I should say approximately seven to eight hundred feet." If the majority opinion means that Riley should have pushed his car forward until he himself would have been at the southernmost line of the highway, this would place thefront of his car at least five or six *229 feet into the Lincoln Highway. This would be a place of great peril and is something the law nowhere commands a driver to do. Prudence required that Riley stop his car with the front end of the car a short distance back from the southernmost point of the Lincoln Highway, for a position immediately contiguous to a highway is like a position immediately contiguous to a railroad, clearly in the zone of great danger.
The case of Dougherty v. Merchants Baking Co.,
If the rule laid down in the majority opinion in this case is to prevail, it will mean that a motorist approaching a main highway, as Riley did, will have to approach, if necessary to a long view, right up to the main highway, if he wishes to escape the imputation of want of care. For a motorist to bring his car right up to a main highway is in itself a perilous thing to do. No prudent person would either himself stand at or even a foot or two from a main highway or place his car that close to a main highway while automobiles are whizzing by at the usual rate of 50 to 60 miles an hour. The just rule in these cases is, as it is in railroad crossing cases, that if a person stops at the customary stopping place and then seeing a clear road within his line of vision on either side, starts to cross and is injured, the question of his contributory negligence is for the jury. Riley had every reason to believe that in stopping at the white stop line, he was conforming to the requirements of due care. If in stopping at that place gave him an observation to the west of not more than 100 feet, he had a right to assume that a person coming from the west would slacken up his speed at *231 this manifestly dangerous intersection. Defendant did not slacken his obviously great speed though, as was testified, when "approaching from the west to the east [as defendant was] on the Lincoln Highway, first you see a red sign — cross roads, a slow sign." If defendant had observed this "slow" order, this fatal accident would not have occurred. Defendant's extreme negligence in this case is established (and, of course, on this motion is not controverted). The contributory negligence of Riley under the authorities presented was, as the court below ruled, a question for the jury. Under section 1016 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Code of June 22, 1931, P. L. 751, 798, it was Riley's duty "to come to a full stop, within a reasonable distance, before entering the intersection." What is a reasonable distance cannot be declared as a matter of law but is a jury question and this is particularly true when, as in the instant case, the victim stopped at a distance which the white line indicated as a "reasonable distance" from the Lincoln Highway.
I think the learned trial judge correctly summed up this case in the following language: "In view of the fact that it was testified by the plaintiff's witness that the plaintiff's husband, as he approached this intersection, did stop his automobile at the white line, on the Carlisle-Hanover Turnpike on the side south of the intersection, looked both ways, saw nothing and then proceeded to negotiate the crossing at not more than ten miles an hour; that he had proceeded into the intersection before the compact of the machines occurred, to a position where the front of his machine was at or slightly beyond the medial line of the Lincoln Highway at the intersection, and that immediately before the impact of cars he swerved the car to his right, we are convinced that the question of his negligence was a matter of fact to be determined by the jury."
It is an established principle on a rule for judgment n. o. v. for defendant that "the testimony should not only be read in the light most advantageous to plaintiff, all *232
conflicts therein being resolved in his favor, but he must be given the benefit of every fact and inference of fact pertaining to the issues involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence": Guilinger v. P. R. R. Co.,
I would affirm the judgment of the court below.