Rose v. Quaker City Cab Co.

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 208
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 358

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles■—Collision at intersection of streets— Failure to sound horn — Comparative negligence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries to an automobile resulting from a collision of two automobiles at the intersection of two streets, the court commits reversible error in charging that if defendant’s driver “failed to blow his horn so as to give proper warning of his approach, the jury may find for the plaintiff,” where the evidence shows that the plaintiff saw the car some distance away coming in his direction so that he had the same knowledge that the sounding of the horn would give, and that consequently the failure to give warning was not the proximate cause of the accident.</p> <p>In such a ease it is reversible error for the court to charge that “the plaintiff may recover damages caused by the defendant’s negligence notwithstanding that plaintiff’s own negligence exposing him to the risk of injury, if such injury was more immediately caused by the defendant’s omission to use ordinary care for the purpose of avoiding injury to the plaintiff after the defendant’s driver became aware of the plaintiff’s danger.” Such an instruction injects into the case the doctrine of comparative negligence, which has never been recognized as the law in Pennsylvania. Hess v. Kemmerer, 65 Pa. Superior Ct. 247, distinguished.</p> <p>When two vehicles are approaching each other at right angles, the rights of each are equal and each is bound to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to the other. It is the duty of each driver to have his vehicle under control and to observe what is or may be approaching on the other street; to keep his car at such speed that he may, to avoid a collision, stop it quickly; and where another vehicle is first at the crossing it should be given an opportunity to clear the crossing.</p>