Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 6, 1918

Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Co., 261 Pa. 288 (Pa. 1918)

104 A. 588; 1918 Pa. LEXIS 732

Brown, Frazer, Moschzisker, Stewart, Walling

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto was entered on the ground of the contributory negligence of the deceased. This was inevitable under the testimony, and defendant’s tenth and eleventh points should have been affirmed. The learned trial judge so admits in his opinion granting defendant’s motion for judgment, and, on so much of that opinion as points out that no distinction can be made between Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company..248 Pa. 130, and the present case, the judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Laudenberger v. Easton Transit Company
Cited By: 7 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: - Negligence — Street railways — Automobiles—Dangerous, crossing — Right-angle collision — Passenger in automobile — Gratuitous guest — Death—Familiarity with locality — Contributory negligence —Judgment for defendant n. o. v. In an action against a street railway company to recover for death of plaintiff’s husband resulting from a’right-angle collision between an automobile and one of defendant’s cars, deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and judgment was properly entered for the defendant non obstante veredicto where it appeared that deceased was a guest of the driver of the automobile, beside whom he was seated; that both were familiar with the locality; that the railway tracks were on the near side of the intersecting road; that the view down the tracks was so obstructed that persons in the automobile could not see in the direction from which the car was coming until the automobile was from ten to fifteen feet from the tracks; that-a “stop, look and listen” sign was posted several hundred feet from the crossing and was plainly visible to deceased and the driver; that the automobile did not stop but slackened its speed from twenty to ten miles per hour, and neither the motorman nor the driver saw each other until the street car and the automobile were less than tweiity feet apart, and it was too late for either to avert the collision. Dunlap v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 248 Pa. 130, followed.