Negligence — Automobiles — Entering upon through highway — Approaching vehicles — Contributory negligence — Sudden emergency — Evidence — Question for jury.
1. A driver of an automobile who has come to a full stop before a through highway may then proceed to cross the highway, even though other vehicles on the through highway are approaching the intersection, if he is so far in advance that, in the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, he is justified in believing that he can cross ahead of the approaching vehicles without danger of a collision.
2. Where such driver commits himself to the crossing, he is not bound to anticipate that the driver of the approaching vehicle will hasten rather than slacken his speed.
3. The fact that a driver is on a through highway does not relieve him of his duty of care at intersections; he is required to drive with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highways.
4. Mere failure to decide correctly on a course of action when unexpectedly confronted with sudden peril is not negligence per se.
5. Contributory negligence may be declared as a matter of law only in a clear case.
6. Even if there is a conflict in the testimony of plaintiff, as long as there is some evidence to support his case, any inconsistency in the testimony is for the jury to resolve.
Argued October 11, 1939.
PER CURIAM, January 30, 1940:
No appeal was taken from the order of the court of common pleas granting a new trial, on motion of the plaintiff, for inadequacy of the verdict. The order dismissing defendant's motion for judgment in its favor, non obstante veredicto, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge BROWN, who presided at the trial.