Appeal, No. 285, Jan. T., 1954, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1950, No. 1844, in case of James Perpetua v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused April 18, 1955.
Henry D. O'Connor, with him Francis G. Wenzel, for appellant.
Philip Price, with him Jay B. Leopold, for appellee.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ARNOLD
Plaintiff sued defendant in trespass for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a collision between his automobile and defendant's bus. This appeal is from the refusal of his motion for removal of compulsory non-suit entered against him by the court below.
A reading of the testimony discloses sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have found defendant negligent in going through a red signal light. The sole question involved is whether plaintiff's testimony has also convicted him of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Considered in a light most favorable to plaintiff, as the must be, the material facts are as follows: On a misty morning, at approximately daybreak, plaintiff drove his automobile southeasterly on Henry Avenue in the City of Philadelphia. He stopped for a red light at a point where Henry Avenue intersects both Allegheny Avenue (at an angle of approximately 65 degrees), which runs in an east-west direction, and Hunting Park Avenue (at an angle of approximately 85 degrees), which runs in a northwest-southeast direction. Also intersecting Allegheny Avenue at this point, and at an angle of approximately 90 degrees, is 30th Street, which runs southerly therefrom. Allegheny, Hunting Park, and Henry Avenues are each wide enough to accommodate at least six lanes of traffic. It is apparent, therefore, that the convergence of these streets creates a very wide and somewhat complicated intersection.
When the light turned green, plaintiff proceeded to cross Hunting Park Avenue. His intention was to cross Allegheny Avenue and to turn left into its south side, and then to proceed easterly thereon. When he arrived at a point three-quarters of the way across Hunting Park Avenue, still travelling in low gear, he
was struck on the right side by defendant's but, which had been going east on Allegheny Avenue and had driven through a red light. There was no estimate of the speed of the bus, nor was it shown just where the bus was as plaintiff approached the point of collision.
Plaintiff testified that he did not see the bus "at all" before the accident, but declared that he had looked "for any moving traffic." The record is barren of any testimony as to whether he continued to look as he proceeded through the intersection. Since there is a clear view on Allegheny Avenue for a considerable distance, it is obvious that he did not look, or that he disregarded the approach of defendant's bus if he did look. Plaintiff has not met the burden imposed upon him to "make out a case clear of contributory negligence": Lewis v. Quinn, 376 Pa. 109, 101 A.2d 382. "'The law only makes obligatory the rule of common sense regarding the duty of a driver at the intersection of streets, where traffic is very dangerous because conflicting. He must be vigilant, must exercise a high degree of care, must have has car under complete control, and must look, and see what is visible, before attempting to cross the intersecting street'": Rea v. Pittsburgh Railways Company, 344 Pa. 421, 425, 25 A.2d 730. The green light was not authority to plaintiff to proceed without regard to other ...