Newman v. Protective Motor Service Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A pedestrian must exercise continued vigilance while crossing a street: Mackin v. Patterson, 270 Pa. 110; Lorah v. Rinehart, 243 Pa. 231. The fact that plaintiff is crossing the street at an intersection does not relieve him from the duty of watchfulness: Mackin v. Patterson, 270 Pa. 107; Gilles v. Leas, 282 Pa. 318.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, appeal from the refusal of the court below to take off nonsuits in actions brought by them to recover damages for personal injuries which they received as a result of being struck by defendant’s armored motor truck when they were crossing the intersection of Broad and Pine Streets in Philadelphia. Broad Street runs north and south, is 69 feet from curb to curb and 113 feet from house line to house line; Pine Street is 27 feet wide from curb to curb.
Appellants were proceeding north on the west foot pavement of Broad Street. When they…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Alperdt Et Ux. v. PaigeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Gilles v. LeasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Davis v. American Ice Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Zandras v. MoffettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Johnson v. FrenchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Byrne v. Schultz (Stone)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Galliano v. East Penn Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Dando v. BrobstSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Zurcher v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Goodall v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.