Rankin v. Ward Baking Co.

Citations

• 272 Pa. 108
• 116 A. 58
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 783

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles — Infant near school house — Grossings — Contributory negligence — Conflicting evidence — Case for jury — Evidence of negligence from accident — Bes ipsa loquitur.</p> <p>1. It is the duty of a driver of an automobile to have his car under such control at street intersections as to be able to stop at the shortest possible notice.</p> <p>2. For a motor vehicle to run down a pedestrian who is in full view and does not suddenly change his course, is evidence of negligence.</p> <p>3. There may be negligence in failing to have a motor vehicle under proper control, without excessive speed.</p> <p>4. The tendency of small children to run across streets, especially at or near school houses, must not be ignored by drivers of motor vehicles.</p> <p>5. As a pedestrian may lawfully cross a street at any point, the fact that he crosses in the middle of the block, will not in itself charge' him with contributory negligence.</p> <p>6. In an action to recover for injuries to a child, six years old, run down by a motor truck near a school house, the case is for the jury where the evidence is conflicting, as to whether or not the child was at a street intersection, and as to whether or not she darted out from behind a trolley car.</p> <p>Negligence — Injuries to minor child — Damages—New triad— Discretion of court — Abuse—Appeal.</p> <p>7. In an action to recover damages for injuries to a minor child six years old, a verdict for $2,500 for the father, is not excessive, where it appears that his expenses, by reason of the accident, amounted to over $900.</p> <p>8. Nor is a verdict for $10,000 for the child necessarily excessive, where it appears that her leg was crushed, that she was confined to the hospital for five months, and that there would be an arrested growth of her leg with permanent deformity and disability.</p> <p>9. The lower court’s refusal of a new trial in such case is not an abuse of discretion so as to call for reversal on appeal.</p>