Stubbs v. Edwards

Citations

• 260 Pa. 75
• 103 A. 511
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 470

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — ■Automobiles—Vehicle driven behind another — Sudden stopping of vehicle in front — Bight-angle turn of recw vehicle —Collision with opposite bound traffic — Speed—Proximate came— Contributory negligence — Action by driver of rear vehicle against driver of opposite bound car — Nonsuit.</p> <p>1. The violation of a statute will not create a liability unless it is tbe efficient cause of tbe injury.</p> <p>2. Although an automobile may be traveling at a rate of speed prohibited by law, unless the excessive speed of the car was the proximate cause of an injury complained of, the owner is not liable for such negligence.</p> <p>3. One is not bound to so manage an automobile as to avoid a collision with a vehicle tEat turns unexpectedly in front of it from the other side of the street.</p> <p>4. The driver of a vehicle being driven so close behind another vehicle that the latter’s sudden stop rendered it necessary for the driver of the rear vehicle to make a right-angle turn into the path of opposite bound traffics, is guilty of negligence.</p> <p>5. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff was driving a motorcycle and was running from ten to twenty feet behind an automobile; that the automobile suddenly stopped when plaintiff was so near to it that he was unable to stop his motorcycle and was obliged to turn almost at right-angles across the street to avoid colliding with the car; in so doing he came immediately in front of defendant’s automobile, which was running on the right side of the road, at a speed which it might be deduced from the evidence was in excess of that permitted by law. Meld, (1) the violation of the speed law was not the proximate cause of the accident; (2) defendant was not hound to assume that plaintiff would turn immediately in front of her car; (3) plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the judgment of the court below refusing to take off the nonsuit was affirmed.</p>