Case Name: Pieper, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-03-24
Citations: 202 Pa. 100
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 53
Parties: Pieper, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company.
Judges: Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Bbown, Mestbezat and Potteb, JJ,
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 100–107

Head Matter:
Pieper, Appellant, v. Union Traction Company.
Negligence — Street railways — Look and listen — Collision between car and wagon.
When a person driving a wagon with side curtains down, approaches a cross street on which a street railway is operated, it is his duty to be on the lookout for an approaching car, and when on the street, to continue to look until the track is reached, and a single glance when he reaches the flag crossing, out from underneath the cover of his wagon down the cross street, for but fifty or seventy feet, is a mere heedless glance, and not an adequate performance of the duty required by the situation. In such a case if the driver of the wagon does not look again or attempt to do so when he gets on the street and reaches the track, but sits back in his wagon within the curtained sides with the view of a coming car cut off and drives on until his wagon is struck by the car, he cannot recover damages from the street railway company for the injuries sustained.
Mestrezat, J., dissents.
Argued Jan. 21, 1902.
Appeal, No. 53, Jan. T., 1901, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1899, No. 818, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of John H. Pieper v. Union Traction Company.
Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Dean, Fell, Bbown, Mestbezat and Potteb, JJ,
Affirmed.
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Audenbied, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
Erederick J. Shoyer, for appellant.
The rule to stop, look and listen when applied to collisions occurring when crossing electric railways on public streets and highways is in some particulars different than with respect to collisions while crossing steam railroads: Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Railway Co., 150 Pa. 180; Omslaer v. Pittsburg, etc., Traction Co., 168 Pa. 519; Wheelahan v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 150 Pa. 187; Carson v. Federal Street, etc., Ry. Co., 147 Pa. 219; Smith v. Electric Traction Co., 187 Pa. 110; Boehmer v. Traction Co., 194 Pa. 313; Kern v. Traction Co., 194 Pa. 75; Cupps v. Traction Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 630; Brown v. Traction Co., 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 594; Darwood v. Traction Co., 189 Pa. 592; Raulston v. Traction Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 412; Callahan v. Traction Co., 184 Pa. 425; Downey v. Traction Co., 161 Pa. 131; Conyngham v. Electric Motor Co., 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 573.
The case clearly does not come within the principle of Carroll v. R. R. Co., 12 W. N. C. 348; Omslaer v. Traction Co., 168 Pa. 519; Wheelahan v. Traction Co., 150 Pa. 187; Boehmer v. Traction Co., 194 Pa. 313; Cupps v. Traction Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 630; Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180; Brown v. Traction Co., 14 Pa. Superior Ct. 594; Darwood v. Traction Co., 189 Pa. 592.
This case on all its facts certainly comes within the principle of Downey v. Traction Co., 161 Pa. 131, Callahan v. Traction Co., 184 Pa. 425, Raulston v. Traction Co., 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 412, and Conyngham v. Electric Motor Co., 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 573, and the judgment of nonsuit should be reversed.
Thomas Learning, with him Charles Biddle, for appellee.
It is contributory negligence not to look immediately before crossing a track, and the learned court was correct in entering a nonsuit: Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497; Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180.
March 24, 1902:
Appellant’s argument that the car must have been so distant that the plaintiff was excused from the duty to look is mathematically impossible and is without authority.
The authorities as to right-angle collisions between street cars and wagons in their chronological order are as follows: Thomas v. Citizens Pass. Ry. Co., 132 Pa. 504; Carson v. Federal St., etc., Ry. Co., 147 Pa. 219; Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180; Wheelahan v. Phila. Traction Co., 150 Pa. 187; Winter v. Federal St., etc., Pass. Ry. Co., 153 Pa. 26; Gilmore v. Federal St., etc., Pass. Ry. Co., 153 Pa. 31; Downey v. Pittsburg, etc., Traction Co., 161 Pa. 131; Omslaer v. Pittsburg, etc., Traction Co., 168 Pa. 519; Callahan v. Phila. Traction Co., 184 Pa. 425; Smith v. Electric Traction Co., 187 Pa. 110; Darwood v. Traction Co., 189 Pa. 592; Kern v. Second Ave. Traction Co., 194 Pa. 75; Boehmer v. Pittsburg, etc., Traction Co., 194 Pa. 313; Bornscheuer v. Traction Co., 198 Pa. 332; Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497; Tyson v. Union Traction Co., 199 Pa. 264.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Brown,
The record in this case does not disclose the reason why the court below entered the judgment of nonsuit, but we assume it was on the ground of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. According to his own testimony, he was so careless before crossing the track, and so reckless of Ms duty to protect himself from impending danger, that it would have been palpable error to have submitted his case to the jury. He testified that, on January 11, 1900, he was driving a two-horse wagon westward from Twelfth street, on Thompson street, in the city of Philadelphia; that the wagon was a big, high seated one with curtains all down the sides, because it was raining; that, when he reached the flag crossing across Thompson street, on the east side of Thirteenth street, he gave one look " out from underneath the cover " of his wagon, down Thirteenth street, for a distance of fifty or seventy feet, to see if a trolley car was coming, and, seeing none within that distance, he sat back in the wagon, satisfied that he could cross the track without being struck; that, giving no further look, he went straight ahead, and the next thing he knew Ms wagon was Mt. Hut ton, who was in tbe wagon with him, testified that it was necessary to stoop forward and look around the curtains to get a view of Thirteenth street from the south, the direction from which the car was coming.
The duty of the plaintiff, when he was entering Thirteenth street, was to be on the lookout for the approaching car, and, when on the street, to continue to look until the track was reached: Burke v. Union Traction Co., 198 Pa. 497; but he failed even to look as he should have looked when he was about to enter the street, and he did not look at all when his team was on it and came to the track. A single glance " out from underneath the cover" of his wagon, down the street for but fifty or seventy feet, was not such a looking as enabled him to see the danger into which he took his wagon an instant later; and this careless looking was in itself negligence. It was a mere heedless glance, and not an adequate performance of the duty required by the situation: Warner v. Peoples' Street Railway Co., 141 Pa. 615. After this careless look or glance he did not look again, or attempt to do so, when he got on the street and reached the track. On the contrary, he sat back in his wagon, between its curtained sides, with the view of Thirteenth street and the coming car cut off, and, with unconcern that amounted to recklessness, placidly drove on until his wagon was struck. In the reported cases, from Ehrisman v. East Harrisburg City Pass. Ry. Co., 150 Pa. 180, down to Burke v. Union Traction Co., supra, there can be found no clearer case of contributory negligence. From the dilemma in which the plaintiff has placed himself not even the testimony of his witness, Collins, can extricate him. In what that witness said as to material matters he was so clearly mistaken, and his testimony was so manifestly incorrect, that the court would have been fully justified in instructing the jury to disregard it, if the case had been submitted to them: Bornscheuer v. Consolidated Traction Co., 198 Pa. 332.
Judgment affirmed.