Middleton v. Glenn ( 1958 )

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Arnold,

This action of trespass concerned injuries to the minor plaintiff while he was riding a bicycle toward the East River Drive down Strawberry Mansion hill in Pairmount Park, Philadelphia. Strawberry Mansion hill has a steep grade running in the direction of East River Drive and curves to its right some distance above the Drive. The testimony of the plaintiffs was that defendant crossed the white line which bisected the Strawberry Mansion hill, and struck the minor plaintiff when he was on the right hand side of the road. The defendant’s testimony was that she was on her own side of the road and never erossed the white line, and that the minor plaintiff was on the wrong side of the- road when he collided with her car. She swerved but was unable to avoid the accident.

The case was submitted to the jury, which had to reconcile the divergent testimony of the plaintiffs and the defendant. It resolved this question with a verdict for the defendant, thus absolving the defendant from all liability. Upon this verdict judgment Was entered in the court below. The plaintiffs ¿ppealed to this Court, alleging certain trial errors, and asked for a new trial.

The appellants’ first proposition is that the court erred in permitting the reading of hospital records concerning the minor plaintiff’s alleged physical condition. This could only be pertinent as to the amount of damages, and since the defendant was absolved from liability, it is not’ necessary for this Court to pass upon the assignment: Nyce v. Muffley, 384 Pa. 107, 110, 119 A. 2d 530.

The second question raised by the plaintiffs was that the court declined, to charge that the defendant was bound by the incontrovertible physical facts rule. The difficulty with this contention is that there is no basis for the application of such rule. This point apparently refers to the testimony of. witnesses who preceded the defendant in ascending Strawberry Mansión hill. They testified that as they drove around the curve they saw the minor plaintiff ón his bicycle; that he narrowly missed striking their car; and that through the rear vision mirror they saw him collide with the defendant’s car. There was no occasion here for the application of the incontrovertible physical facts doctrine. The testimony of these witnesses, and its credibility, were for the jury, and were properly left to it.

The third point of the appellants is the réfusal of the court to charge in effect that plaintiffs could. be barred from recovery only if the minor plaintiff’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. This is not the law of Pennsylvania: See Crane v. Neal, 389 Pa. 329, 332, 132 A. 2d 675, where it is stated that the court should not confuse or equate contributory negligence with proximate cause; and that the plaintiff cannot recover if his negligence, however slight, contributed to the injury. The court’s charge in. this respect was slightly more favorable to the plaintiffs than the law requires.

The plaintiffs next complain of the refusal of the court to charge that “if [the jury believes] [the] evidence is in ‘even balance’ [it] may give special consideration to a presumption in making determination.” We are at a loss to know what this means; and the court was quite right in declining so to charge. The only presumption involved in the present case is the rebuttable presumption that a child of the age of the minor plaintiff could not be contributorily negligent. The jury was charged that the defendant had the burden of overcoming the presumption by affirmative proof of the child’s experience and intelligence. The point submitted bore no relation to the testimony in the record, and was properly declined.

Lastly, the plaintiffs assign as error the affirmance of two requests for charge by the defendant which were as follows: (1) “An operator of a car is not required to pull off the road to avoid an oncoming vehicle which is on the wrong side of the road when suddenly 'confronted with an emergency. . (2) “An operator of an automobile need not anticipate that another vehicle will be suddenly diverted in its course over to its left or wrong side of the highway, and the failure to anticipate such unexpected conduct is not negligence.” The complaint of the appellants is that the defendant was aware that there were children in the vicinity riding bicycles down the hill, and therefore that the defendant had a heavy duty of care. But the court charged: “Where children are involved and the driver of the vehicle knows or should know that they are present, then he is under a duty to exercise a higher degree of care than under ordinary circumstances.” It may also be pointed out that the court charged the jury on a point submitted by the plaintiffs as follows: “An automobile driver who sees a child in a place of danger or who has reasonable grounds to apprehend that the child may come into the path of the automobile which he is driving is under a duty to exercise a higher degree of care than under ordinary circumstances and such a reasonable degree of care as the circumstances require.”

The trial was free of error and the judgment is affirmed.