Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

POULOS v. CASSARA. (11/17/55)

November 17, 1955

POULOS, APPELLANT,
v.
CASSARA.



Appeal, No. 209, March T., 1955, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1952, No. 3430, in case of Peter Poulos v. Louis Cassara. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

Edward A. Damrau, with him T. Robert Brennan, and Brennan, Brennan, Damrau & Mohan, for appellant.

Joseph F. Weis, with him Bliss R. Mentzer, and Weis & Weis, for appellee.

Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

[ 383 Pa. Page 218]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The action of the court below in refusing the plaintiff a new trial and entering judgment on the verdict for the defendant is affirmed upon the following excerpts from its opinion:

"The instant case arose out of an accident which occurred at the intersection of Liberty Avenue and Ninth Street in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 1954.

"The plaintiff testified he was standing on the north side of Liberty Avenue, at the intersection of Ninth Street and when the traffic light turned green, he looked both ways, and began to cross the street.

[ 383 Pa. Page 219]

"According to his testimony, just before he arrived at the dummy in the center of the street, he looked to his left and saw the defendant's car coming at a fast rate of speed. He said he tried to get out of the way of defendant's automobile but was hit after taking two steps.

"The defendant testified he was traveling west on Liberty Avenue, behind a street car which was fifteen feet ahead of his automobile. He said as the street car continued through the intersection at Liberty Avenue and Ninth Street, he looked up and saw the light was green, and he continued through the intersection. He said the plaintiff suddenly ran in front of him from his right and was struck by the left front fender of his car. His testimony revealed he was only five or ten feet away from the plaintiff when the plaintiff stepped in front of him. Defendant testified he immediately applied his brakes but was unable to stop his car in that short distance.

"Counsel for the plaintiff argues that the Court charged the jury to the effect that a pedestrian has the same duty as a driver of an automobile in crossing an intersection ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.