Appeal, No. 113, March T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1954, No. 3664, in case of Charles Haushalter v. Woodlawn & Southern Motor Coach Company. Judgment affirmed.
Bruce R. Martin, with him Pringle, Bredin & Martin, for appellant.
Charles F. Dean, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO
The plaintiff in this case, Charles Haushalter, was struck by a bus belonging to the defendant, Woodlawn & Southern Motor Coach Company, and recovered a verdict of $26,000 for injuries sustained in the accident. The defendant moved for judgment n.o.v. The motion was refused and the defendant appealed.
The issue in this case was simply one of fact. Did the circumstances show that the driver of the involved bus was negligent in the manner he operated his bus which ran down the pedestrian? Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence in the manner he started across a street? The jury answered the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. The record amply substantiates these findings.
It was 6:40 in the morning on January 15, 1953, when the plaintiff, a crane operator, walked across the Ambridge Bridge spanning the Ohio River and continued eastwardly on Eleventh Street, a continuation of the thoroughfare on the bridge. Close to the bridge, Ohioview Street, running north and south, intersects Eleventh Steet. Haushalter proceeded to cross Ohioview
Street at this point, but before doing so he looked to the left which would be north on Ohioview, he looked to his right which would be south on Ohioview and then, when he got to the center of Ohioview he paused and again looked to the right. At each of these viewings he saw no approaching vehicle.
The defendant company maintains that Haushalter was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, because he did not see the bus prior to the time it struck him and take such precaution that such view would have dictated.
The bus moved east on Eleventh Street after leaving the bridge and then began to make the turn north onto Ohioview. Here is where the collision occurred. At this point Ohioview is thirty feet wide. The plaintiff testified that he had traversed twenty-five feet of this width when he was struck from ...