Negligence — Automobile — Truck — Collision — Street intersection — Right of way.
In an action of trespass to recover for damages sustained in a collision between two vehicles at a street intersection, the plaintiff testified that when he reached the house line at the intersection he was traveling eighteen to twenty miles per hour, and that the defendant's truck, approaching from his right, was thirteen feet from the intersection and proceeding at a speed of twenty-five to thirty miles per hour. The plaintiff proceeded into the intersection and was struck by the defendant's truck.
In such circumstances, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and a judgment for the plaintiff will be reversed.
Under the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1925, P.L. 254, where two vehicles approach an intersection at substantially the same time, the driver at the left must give way unless so far in advance of the other as to afford reasonable time to clear the crossing.
Argued October 22, 1929.
OPINION BY KELLER, J., January 29, 1930:
This judgment cannot be sustained.
According to plaintiff's own story, when he, traveling east on Arch Street, passed the houseline of Millick Street the defendant's coal truck coming north on his right was thirteen feet distant from Arch Street. Plaintiff was traveling 18 to 20 miles an hour; defendant's truck 25 to 30 miles an hour. They were approaching the intersection at substantially the same time. The defendant had the right of way: Act of April 27, 1925, P.L. 254, 279. It was plaintiff's duty to stop and let the car coming from his right pass unless he was so far in advance as to afford him reasonable time to clear the crossing ahead of defendant; and he was bound to have his car under such control that he could stop. In the circumstances above related no reasonably prudent man would be justified in believing that he could clear the intersection of the paths of the two vehicles before the defendant's truck arrived there. See Lochetta v. Cunningham Cab Co., 98 Pa. Super. 4. Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the court below should have so ruled as matter of law.
The assignments of error are sustained. The judgment is reversed and is here entered for the defendant.