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.

ROBERT E. EDER v. ROBERT LANSBERRY (01/27/75)

decided: January 27, 1975.

ROBERT E. EDER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LANSBERRY, APPELLEE



COUNSEL

Charles S. Morrow, Spotts, Gill & Morrow, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Bliss R. Mentzer, J. E. Coyne, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Jones, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Eagen

[ 459 Pa. Page 623]

OPINION OF THE COURT

In this action seeking compensation for personal injuries incurred in a motor vehicle accident, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a compulsory non-suit at the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence as to liability. Thereafter, a court en banc denied the plaintiff's motion to remove the non-suit and the Superior Court affirmed this order. We granted allocatur and now reverse.

It is fundamental that in evaluating the correctness of the entry of a compulsory non-suit, the plaintiff is entitled to have the testimony read in the light most favorable to his case, and is also entitled to all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Idlette v. Tracey, 407 Pa. 278, 180 A.2d 37 (1962). So read, the instant record discloses the following.

On August 29, 1968, about 11 a.m., the plaintiff was operating a Honda motorcycle on a two-lane improved rural highway, when it was struck from the rear by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant. At the moment of impact, the motorcycle was in the process of making a left turn into an intersecting road, and the defendant's motor vehicle was attempting to overtake and pass the motorcycle. The collision occurred when the motorcycle was in the lane nearer the intersecting road.

The weather was clear and the roadway was dry. At least 300 feet from the intersection, the plaintiff activated the motorcycle's turn signal to indicate his intention to make a left turn, and at a point 50 to 60 feet before proceeding to make the turn, the plaintiff looked over his shoulder to see if any traffic was approaching from the rear. He could see for a distance of 100 feet, and there was no approaching traffic within his vision.

The trial court ruled: (1) the plaintiff's evidence established he was guilty of contributory negligence as a

[ 459 Pa. Page 624]

    matter of law; and (2) the plaintiff's evidence failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. We disagree and rule both questions were for the jury to resolve.

The trial court concluded the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, because he last looked for traffic approaching from the rear when his motorcycle was 50 feet distant from the intersection. The rule in this Commonwealth is that "'contributory negligence should not be declared as a matter of law save where such negligence is so clearly revealed that fair and reasonable individuals cannot disagree as to its existence [citation omitted].'" Griffith v. ...


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.