Cronmuller v. Evening Telegraph

Citations

• 232 Pa. 14
• 81 A. 58
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 668

Syllabus

<p>Negligence. — Pedestrian—Wagon—Contributory negligence — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against the owner of a wagon to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that the plaintiff was struck by the shaft of the wagon while proceeding on a crossing from the pavement to a street car that was standing at a regular stopping place to receive passengers. The wagon was being driven north on the east side of the street on which the car ran south. When fifty or sixty feet from the standing car the driver turned in front of it to the west side of the street and passed by the car in a space about nine feet wide with his horse on a fast trot. While doing so he struck the plaintiff. Held, that the question of the driver’s negligence was for the jury.</p> <p>2. In the above ease the plaintiff testified on his examination in chief that he stood on the street corner waiting for a car funning south, that when the car was about stopped and the middle of it was opposite to him, he looked south and then north, and saw that tie way was clear in both directions. He then took three or four steps towards the car and was struck when within a step of it. On his cross-examination, however, he testified that when standing on the pavement at the corner, he did not look south but kept looking north. Held, (1) that the plaintiff in his cross-examination did not contradict his statement that he looked south when the middle of the car was opposite to him, inasmuch as he could look south when he was advancing towards the crossing; and (2) that even if there was a contradiction, the case was still for the jury.</p> <p>3. Where the testimony whether of the plaintiff or his witnesses is contradictory, and on one part of it he is entitled to go to the jury, and on the .other part he is not, it is for the jury to reconcile the conflicting statements and to say which shall prevail.</p>