At the time of walking into defendant's car, plaintiff was looking to his right- westerly on Market Street. At that time the red light was against traffic coming from that direction and the nearest car was 150 feet away to the west. For some distance plaintiff did not look to his left, the greatest source of possible danger and the only source from which legal traffic might at that time flow so as to endanger the plaintiff.
A policeman standing at the intersection saw the plaintiff in the act of crossing; the Army vehicle approaching; and realizing that the plaintiff did not see the car coming called 'Look out' immediately before the plaintiff came into contact with the government vehicle.
When defendant's car came to a stop, plaintiff was standing facing the side of the right front fender with his arms extended in the air over the hood. Thereafter he dropped to his knee alongside the car. He then told Staff Sergeant Padwe, who had been riding in the Army car seated alongside the driver and who immediately stepped out of the car to assist the plaintiff, that he was hurrying to get across the intersection so as to avoid traffic.
Plaintiff failed to exercise the degree of watchfulness required of pedestrians for their own safety.
Had plaintiff used reasonable care for his own safety under the circumstances, the accident would not have occurred.
As to the law.
A pedestrian crossing an intersection with a green traffic light in his favor, does have have an absolute right of way for the full distance of the crossing. He must continually be on guard for his safety. Schroeder v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 311 Pa. 398, 165 A. 733. See Galliano v. East Penn Electric Co., 303 Pa. 498, at page 502, 154 A. 805. He must not only look before he enters but must continue to look as he proceeds and he will not be heard to say that he looked without seeing what was approaching and plainly visible. Guy v. Lane, 345 Pa. 40, 43, 26 A.2d 327; Martino v. Adourian, 360 Pa. 580, at page 583, 63 A.2d 12.
As to the possibility of cars moving east on Market Street, plaintiff would be justified in assuming they would not disregard the red traffic light. Newman et ux. v. Protective Motor Service Co., 298 Pa. 509, 512, 148 A. 711. He states that he chose, however, to concentrate on the possibility of danger of cars skidding from that area to the exclusion of any possibility of danger to his left; a direction from which traffic could at that time, and actually did, legally flow, ibid., and see 75 P.S. §§ 546(b)
As to the duty of the plaintiff and the defendant respectively under the circumstances, see Rhoads et ux. v. Herbert, 298 Pa. 522, at page 525, 148 A. 693, and cf. Rosenthal v. Philadelphia Phonograph Co., 274 Pa. 236, 238, 117 A. 790; Jacobson v. Palma, 115 Pa.Super. 401, at page 406, 175 A. 731.
Under the facts of this case the plaintiff's failure to look to his left and observe traffic approaching from that direction as he crossed the intersection, and, as a result walking into the side of defendant's car, constitutes contributory negligence. Consequently our verdict must be in favor of the defendant.
Under all the evidence judgment must therefore be entered in favor of the defendant.
An order to that effect will be filed this date.