Appeal, No. 100, March T., 1952, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Aug. T., 1950, No. 96, in case of Walter M. Martin and Allison W. Martin v. George E. Gall and Robert C. Bush. Order reversed.
P. Vincent Marino, for appellants.
Francis H. Patrono, for appellees.
Before Drew, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey and Musmanno, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO
On June 12, 1948, Walter M. Martin, appellant-plaintiff in this appeal, was driving a 1938 Oldsmobile Sedan belonging to his father, A. W. Martin, on Meadowlands Pike in Washington County. As he approached a point where the Meadowlands Pike intersects with Allison Hollow Road he observed the defendants' truck coming from the right. A stop sign at this intersection
required all traffic on Allison Hollow Road to come to a definitive halt before proceeding across the through highway on which the plaintiff was moving. The truck, however, did not stop and a collision occurred.
Walter M. Martin filed a suit in trespass for personal injuries sustained by him in the collision and joined with him his father, A. W. Martin, for damages done the Oldsmobile car. At the termination of Walter M. Martin's case, the Court entered a compulsory non-suit against him, finding him contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and allowed the case to go to the jury as to the property damages sustained by the owner of the Oldsmobile. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the owner, A. W. Martin, in the sum of $600.
From the refusal of the court below to take off the non-suit, an appeal has been taken to this Court.
It is now so axiomatic in our law as to scarcely require the presentation of any authority, that in considering an appeal from the refusal to remove a compulsory non-suit, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and he must be given the benefit of every inference and deduction reasonably to be made therefrom. Szukics v. Ruch, 367 Pa. 646, 81 A.2d 903.
Applying this inflexible rule to the facts in this case, we are convinced that the learned Trial Judge should have submitted to the jury the question of contributory negligence, especially when we combine with that rule the other rule that contributory negligence will not be declared as a matter of law unless it is so clear that there can be no room for fair and reasonable ...