Leslie v. Catanzaro

Citations

• 272 Pa. 419
• 116 A. 504
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 841

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—Collision between car and sled — Res ipsa loquitur — Sudden emergency — Obstruction of view — Notice of sledding.</p> <p>1. The mere fact that an automobile comes in contact with a sled coasting across a road, raises no presumption of lack of care on the part of the driver of the automobile.</p> <p>2. One who, in sudden emergency, acts according to his best judgment, or who, because of want of time in which to form that judgment, omits to act in the most judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence.</p> <p>3. Where an automobile collides with a sled coasting across the road, and the evidence shows that the driver of the automobile had no actual or constructive notice of sledding at the place of the accident, and that, under the circumstances and in the sudden emergency, he did what a reasonably prudent man would do in endeavoring to move his ear from the path of the oncoming sled, he cannot be charged with negligence, and a case against him should not be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>4. In such case the evidence must be of a convincing character to justify a jury in finding that the driver must have been aware of coasting at the place of the accident, and therefore had imposed upon him the duty of taking unusual care.</p>