Opinion ID: 1998968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gibbs' Motion for Judgment n.o.v.

Text: It is fundamental that in evaluating the merits of this motion, the testimony must be read in a light most favorable to plaintiff's case: Sweigert v. Mazer, 410 Pa. 71, 188 A. 2d 472 (1963). On the question of liability, the plaintiff testified as follows: In midafternoon of a dreary dry winter's day, he alighted through the right front door of the bus after it came to a stop on Beaver Avenue at Adams Street in the city of Pittsburgh. The right front end of the bus was located up against the curb and the left rear end thereof extended out into the cartway for a distance of approximately three feet. He immediately proceeded to a point approximately ten feet in front of the bus and started to walk across Beaver Avenue. When he reached a point directly in line with the left-hand or outer side of the bus, he momentarily stopped, looked first to his right and then to his left for approaching traffic. From his left, he saw the Gibbs' automobile approaching on Beaver Avenue, traveling in the middle of the roadway in the same direction as the bus and approximately 30 feet to the rear thereof, or 65 feet from the point where the plaintiff was standing. At that moment, the bus started in motion, the plaintiff took one step further into the cartway and was immediately hit by the Gibbs' automobile as it passed the bus on the left-hand side. The plaintiff could not estimate the speed of the Gibbs' automobile before or at the time of the accident. Nor could he describe where it stopped after the impact. Other uncontradicted testimony showed that the car stopped almost instantly. Under these facts, a finding of negligence on the part of Gibbs cannot be sustained and the court below erred in not granting his motion for judgment n.o.v. The mere happening of an accident does not prove negligence on the part of one involved: Lescznski v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co., 409 Pa. 102, 185 A. 2d 538 (1962). Herein, there was no evidence that Gibbs' automobile was being operated too fast or at an unreasonable rate of speed. The fact that it came to a stop almost instantly after hitting plaintiff is strong evidence to the contrary. Nor does the proof establish that the plaintiff was in the cartway within the unobstructed vision of the driver of the automobile for a sufficient length of time for the latter to have seen him, appreciated the danger and avoided the collision. See, Grein v. Gordon, 280 Pa. 576, 124 A. 737 (1924); McAteer v. Highland Coffee Co., 291 Pa. 32, 139 A. 585 (1927); Whalen v. Yellow Cab Co., 313 Pa. 97, 169 A. 97 (1933); Covaleskie v. Schimpf, 322 Pa. 65, 185 A. 196 (1936). Further, assuming that Gibbs did see, or could and should have seen the plaintiff when he stopped at the outer edge of the bus, he was under no obligation to anticipate that the bus would at that moment be carelessly started in motion forcing plaintiff to suddenly proceed further into the cartway. Under the circumstances, Gibbs had the right to expect that the others involved would exercise proper care. See, Schnitzer v. P.T.C., 354 Pa. 576, 47 A. 2d 709 (1946); Martin v. Gall, 370 Pa. 258, 87 A. 2d 925 (1952); Hogg v. Muir, 383 Pa. 413, 119 A. 2d 53 (1956). The case of Oelrich v. Kent, 259 Pa. 407, 103 A. 109 (1918), relied upon by the plaintiff in his case against Gibbs is factually inapposite. Therein, there was testimony that the car involved was traveling at an unreasonable rate of speed and also changed its course immediately before hitting the injured plaintiff. These are not the facts here.