Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, Aug. T., 1965, No. 486, in case of Raymond C. Templin v. Maurita V. Harbold.
J. Edward Pawlick, for appellant.
Robert J. Brown, with him Kain, Brown & Roberts, for appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Spaulding, J.
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 311]
This is an appeal by plaintiff Raymond Templin from an order of the trial court sustaining a compulsory non-suit.
On the evening of May 5, 1965, plaintiff was driving north on Continental Road in York, Pennsylvania, and defendant was traveling east on Fireside Road. The cars collided in the middle of the intersection of these roads.*fn1 Both vehicles were damaged*fn2 and plaintiff sustained severe injuries. He claimed $1,164.20 in special damages*fn3 plus damages for pain and suffering and defendant counterclaimed for $208.21, the damage to her car.
The trial court concluded plaintiff failed to prove defendant was negligent and found that he was contributorily
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 312]
negligent as a matter of law.*fn4 We cannot agree.
Plaintiff testified at trial: "I was driving north . . . and I had slowed down because the intersection is blocked, the view to the left is blocked by a hedge and by some trees, evergreen trees. I shifted the car into second gear, I looked to the right, no traffic coming; I nosed the car out into the intersection, because you have to do that in order to get a view, and I saw nothing coming the other way and I started across the street. . . . I was part way across and a boy ran out in the street ahead of me being chased by another boy. I put my foot on the brake and then the world seemed to collapse on me. I didn't know nothing and then I came to later." Plaintiff also presented the following uncontradicted evidence. While traveling 20 miles per hour, he "nosed out into the intersection", looking right and then left. Defendant's car was not in view, although he could see 60 feet to his left. This would indicate plaintiff's car entered the intersection before defendant's or at approximately the same time. Defendant never denied involvement in the accident.
With no traffic controls at the intersection, plaintiff had the right of way under § 1013 of The Vehicle Code which in pertinent part provides: ". . . When two (2) vehicles . . . approach or enter . . . an intersection at approximately the same time, the operator of the vehicle . . . on the left, shall yield the right of way to the vehicle . . . on the right . . . ." April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, § 1013, ...