Lessig v. Reading Transit & Light Co.

Citations

• 270 Pa. 299
• 113 A. 381
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 379

Syllabus

<p>Negligence —■ Street railways —■ Automobile — Collision — Contributory negligence—Case for court—Evidence—Judicial notice— Presumption—Lootcing at edge of tracto.</p> <p>1. A court cannot accept as true that which the indisputable evidence demonstrates is false.</p> <p>2. Where in a negligence case plaintiff’s own testimony stands not only opposed to that of several disinterested witnesses, but is shown to be untrue by incontrovertible physical facts, it is error to submit the case to the jury.</p> <p>3. It is vain for a man to say that his auto was struck in the back by a street car, where the only injury thereto was at the side near the front wheel; or to insist that a collision with a street car was at one place, when broken glass and other unmistakable evidence thereof, were at another place.</p> <p>4. The appellate court should take judicial notice of the law of nature or mathematics or quality of matter, or whatever it may be that rules the case, and apply it as the trial court should have done.</p> <p>5. Where disinterested testimony and physical facts show that an automobile was struck by a trolley car, immediately as it entered upon the tracks of a street railway, the driver is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and cannot recover.</p> <p>6. A theory cannot be accepted as to how a collision might have happened in the face of convincing evidence as to how it actually did happen.</p> <p>7. There can be no presumption as against facts which are proven.</p> <p>8. The rule requiring a traveler to look when at the edge of a ¡street railroad track is inflexible, and the fact that he is in a closed auto is no excuse for its nonperformance.</p> <p>9. In such case, it is the driver’s duty to lean forward or otherwise to put himself in a position to obtain a clear view of the track, and if he fails to do so, he takes the risk.</p>