Legal Opinion

Toyer v. Hilleman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 8, 1936No. Appeal, 371PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Appellant was nonsuited in the court below because his case presented the clearest kind of contributory negligence. We need not review the facts. We have examined the record and agree with this conclusion of the court below.

A driver approaching a street intersection who observes another car approaching on his right, does not discharge Ms duty by attempting to cross in the path of the oncoming car without again taking precautions against its obvious speed of approach. Having knowledge of this and of the other attending circumstances, he must govern himself accordingly: cf. Fearn v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Alperdt Et Ux. v. PaigeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Fearn v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Susa v. Consolidated Ice CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Laseter v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  2. Grande v. Wooleyhan Transport Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Jaski v. West Park Daily Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Affelgren v. KinkaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Dandridge v. Exhibitors Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API