Hardie v. Barrett

Citations

• 257 Pa. 42
• 101 A. 75
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 681

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—Sired car and chauffeur — Manifest negligence of chauffeur — Failure of passengers bo object — Collision —Wagon—Absence of lights — Rule of road — Proximate cause — • Contributory negligence — Charge—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. When possible dangers arising out of the negligent operation of a hired vehicle or conveyance in which one is riding as an invited guest, are manifest to a passenger, who has any adequate opportunity to control the situation, if he sits by without protest and permits himself to be driven on to his injury, he is guilty of negligence which will bar his recovery. While the negligence of the driver is not imputed to the passenger, the latter is fixed with his own negligence when he joins the former in testing manifest dangers.</p> <p>2. Where in actions by a husband and wife to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an express wagon and an automobile which plaintifEs had hired and which was being driven at the time by the owner’s chauffeur, plaintifEs contended that the collision, which occurred on a dark and rainy night, resulted from the defendant’s wagon being on the wrong side of the road and without lights, but when it appeared that the husband was in the front seat beside the chauffeur while his wife was in the tonneau, that the weight of the evidence indicated that the automobile was being driven at a speed of forty miles per hour, and that the automobile was on the wrong side, of the road, and when it further appeared that the front lights of the automobile illuminated the road for a distance of 200 feet, the trial judge did not err in charging that if the automobile was being driven at a “manifest improper speed” or manifestly on the wrong place in the road and these faults or either of them contributed to the happening of the accident, and if plaintifEs made no effort to get the chauffeur to drive at a proper speed and on the right of the road, they would be guilty of contributory neglige