McClung v. Pennsylvania Taximeter Cab Co.

Citations

• 252 Pa. 478
• 97 A. 694
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 643

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles — Collision — Conflicting evidence— Contributory negligence — Proximate cause — Case for fury.</p> <p>1. It is the duty of a driver of a vehicle approaching the crossing of a street intersection to have his vehicle under control and to observe what is or may be approaching from the other street; and where another vehicle is first at the crossing, to give it an opportunity to clear the same and to use due care to avoid a collision.</p> <p>2. Where in an action for injuries, occasioned in a collision between plaintiff’s automobile and another automobile, plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that defendant’s car was driven in a re.ck-less manner and at very high speed and ran violently into plaintiff’s ear; while defendant’s evidence placed the responsibility for the accident upon the reckless management of plaintiff’s car, the case is for the jury.</p> <p>3. In such case plaintiff was not precluded from recovery by reason of the fact that, at the time of the accident, he was sitting on the floor of the car between the driver and a passenger, as his unusual position was not the cause of the accident and in no way contributed thereto. A person injured by the negligence of another is not deprived of all remedies merely because, at the time, he was occupying an unusual position in a conveyance, unless he thereby cooperated in causing his injuries.</p>