Case Name: Shope, Appellant, v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1913-06-27
Citations: 242 Pa. 207
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 22
Parties: Shope, Appellant, v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company.
Judges: Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 242
Pages: 207–209

Head Matter:
Shope, Appellant, v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Bight angle collision — Contributory negligence.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, it appeared that plaintiff when injured was driving in a spring wagon on a city street sixty feet in width, which crossed at right angles another street thirty-five feet wide, upon which defendant’s cars were operated. He was driving at a slow trot, and his horse was struck on the shoulder the instant it reached the track. At the house line, ten and one-half feet from .the nearest track, plaintiff had an uninterrupted view from the direction in which the car came for three hundred and fifty feet. He testified that he looked and saw no car. The court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. on the ground of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Held, no error.
Argued May 27, 1913.
Appeal, No. 22, May T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Dauphin Co., Sept. T., 1909, No. 330, for defendant n. o. v., in case of E. G. Shope v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Company.
Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before McCarrell, J,
Plaintiff testified that as he approached a crossing of defendant street car company, he looked and listened for. an approaching car. Other facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. .
Verdict for plaintiff for $2,000. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the entry of judgment for defendant n. o. v.
John R. Gayer, of Fox & Geyer, for appellant,
cited: Groner v. D. & H. Canal Co., 153 Pa. 390; Arnold v. P. .& R. R. Co., 161 Pa. 1; Haas v. Chester St, Ry. Co., 202 Pa. 145; Conyngham v. Erie Electric Motor Car Co., 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 573; Holden v. R. R. Co., 169 Pa. 1; Hobel v. Railroad & Light Co., 233 Pa. 450; Haas v. N. C. R. Co., 49 Pa. Superior Ct. 106; Sheetz v. United Traction Co-., 49 Pa. Superior Ct. 177; Howard v. B. & o: R. R. Co., 219 Pa. 358; Kuntz v. Railroad Co., 206 Pa. 162; Kelly v. Traction Co., 204 Pa. 623; Meyers v. Central R. R. Co,, of N, J., 218 Pa. 305; Bickel v. Penna. R. R. Co., 217 Pa. 456; Bane v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 238 Pa. 216.
O. L. Bailey, Jr., of Wolfe é Bailey, for appellee.
June 27, 1913:

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam,
The plaintiff, when injured, was driving in a light spring wagon on a city street, sixty feet in width, that crosses at right angles a street thirty-five feet wide on which the defendant's cars ran. His horse was on a slow trot and was struck on the shoulder the instant it reached the track. At the house line, about ten and a half feet from the nearest track, the plaintiff had an uninterrupted view in the direction from which the car came for some three hundred and fifty feet. One of his Avitnesses who seav him approaching the crossing attempted to Avarn him of his danger and failing to do so, turned away to avoid witnessing the collision. There was no evidence of excessive speed of the car and the only rational conclusion from the plaintiff's evidence is that he failed to exercise the care Avhich the law exacts of a driver about to cross the tracks of an electric railAvay company: Smathers v. Railway Co., 226 Pa. 212.
The judgment is affirmed.