Michalsky v. Putney

Citations

• 51 Pa. Super. 163
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 196

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—Death—Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action against the owner of an automobile, who was also its driver, to recover damages for death of plaintiff’s husband, it appeared that the accident happened in broad daylight on a much traveled paved business street, which was occupied by two street railway tracks one running east and west. The deceased was a passenger on a car which stopped nearly opposite to his home, to reach which he had to cross the two tracks. The place where the car stopped, although not a crossing, was a regular stopping place indicated by a signboard attached to a telegraph pole. When the deceased stepped off the western side of the rear end of the car he was facing the direction from which the automobile came, but it was not then in sight. He spoke to a friend in a wagon and started immediately across the street. When he approached the eastern track he saw the automobile which had given no signal and made motions towards it immediately before he was struck. A number of bystanders uttered shouts and signals of alarm, but the deceased failed to appreciate his dangerous situation and turn back. His body was rolled over a number of times and carried a distance of ninety-five feet. The rate of speed of the automobile was variously estimated by the witnesses from fifteen to forty-five miles per hour. It could have been stopped within twenty or thirty feet when going at the rate of fifteen miles, or within seventy-five feet when going at the rate of thirty-five miles. There was twelve feet of roadway between the eastern track and the curb. Held, that the case was for the jury, and that a verdict and judgment for plaintiff should be sustained.</p>