Case Name: Neubert v. Sichel et al., Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1939-01-26
Citations: 333 Pa. 90
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 343
Parties: Neubert v. Sichel et al., Appellant.
Judges: Before Kephart, C. J., Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 333
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
Neubert v. Sichel et al., Appellant.
Argued January 5, 1939.
Before Kephart, C. J., Schaffer, Maxey, Drew, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
Henry Thomas Dolan, with him Robert G. Duffy, for appellant.
Daniel G. Murphy, for appellee.
January 26, 1939:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The injury in this case resulted from the concurrent negligence of both defendants, one of whom appeals. Appellee ivas crossing a street at its intersection, was struck and thrown to the roadway by the car of one of the defendants going east. Appellant's car, going west, ran over appellee's legs. The intersection was lighted by two arc lights, and appellant admits his headlights were bright and illuminated the road for some distance ahead. One of appellee's witnesses stated that he saw appellee struck by the fender of the car going east, and had swerved his car to avoid hitting the body; he called to appellant, whose car ivas two lengths away and pointed to appellee. His signal was ignored until appellant finally saw and tried to straddle the body. The facts in this case disclose that it was for the jury to determine whether appellant had a fair opportunity to see appellee's body and avoid it. The charge of the court was fair.
We have frequently expressed the rule as to the duty of a motorist at an intersection of public highways. The duty is especially high after dark, particularly as to pedestrians.
Judgment affirmed.