Intersections are Dangerous

Intersections are Dangerous: Be Careful Out There[1]

Dale G. Larrimore, Esquire

            Intersections have long been recognized by our courts as areas of inherent danger for motorists and pedestrians. As early as 1922, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a higher degree of care is expected from drivers at all street crossing, compared to that due at other points on our highways or roads.[2] When operating a motor vehicle approaching an intersection, a motorist must exercise a “high degree of care,” that level of care that a prudent person would exercise whenever faced with circumstances that are “fraught with the hazard of danger.”[3] Every motorist must “drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection.”[4]

The operator of a vehicle at an intersection has the duty to look out for what is normally at intersections, the duty to look for pedestrians who may be crossing at the intersection, and the duty to have his vehicle under control in such manner that he would normally be able to stop if there were any impediment to his travel. The presence of traffic moving in different directions within an intersection requires extreme care and alertness on the part of motorists.[5] With rare exception, when two vehicles approach an intersection “one cutting across the bow of another who holds his course cannot collide with him unless one or both are somehow careless: if either stops in time, no accident can happen.”[6]

When approaching an intersection, a driver must be vigilant and exercise a high degree of care, with her vehicle under such control that she can stop on the shortest possible notice.[7] The presence of intersecting roadways, not the location of vehicles on the roadways, creates this enhanced duty of care. Motorists are always duty-bound to abide by the rules of common sense and, general rules of negligence dictate that one should not drive into an intersection when another vehicle is approaching and where the margin of safety is so fine that a reasonably prudent person would not be justified in believing he or she had adequate time to cross.[8] Drivers must reasonably scan the intersection for traffic conditions that may pose a hazard, looking first to the left and then to the right.[9]
            Duties are expectantly altered when there are traffic lights controlling the flow of traffic through an intersection. Where a driver has a green light in his or her favor, the duty to continue to look is less than when the intersection is uncontrolled.[10] There is a right to assume that other drivers will obey the law and a motorist faced with a green traffic light may rely on another driver’s obligation to observe and obey the red traffic control facing such motorist.[11] Such a motorist also has no affirmative duty to continue looking after entering the intersection.[12]

A driver with a green light for traffic in her direction has the “right-of-way” but it is important to recognize that this is a qualified right-of-way and the operator of vehicle on a through street must take such precautions in regard to the control and speed of his car and keeping an alert lookout for cars approaching the intersection as any reasonably prudent man solicitous of his own safety would take.[13] The question of when a driver is negligent for failing to be properly observant when entering an intersection with a light in his or her favor requires a determination by the jury as to the reasonableness of the driver's actions under the circumstances.[14] 
            Before entering an intersection, think left-right-left. A driver should first look left to observe whether any vehicles are approaching from the first lane you would cross. Then look right to see if it will be clear to cross the entire intersection. Then back left again to make sure nothing came up suddenly while you were looking right. Then it is OK to move forward into this area of danger. Where a motorist does not have the right-of-way, or is at an uncontrolled intersection, or where the initial view of the intersection is obstructed, the motorist must continue to exercise due care by looking for traffic while advancing through the intersection.[15] Without the right-of-way, drivers crossing an intersection must again look to the right when nearing the middle of the street and before entering into a traffic lane coming from that direction.[16] A driver may proceed if and when he has a reasonable belief that the intersection can be completely crossed without a collision.[17]   
             The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code mandates that motorists shall not “drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards existing.”[18] The reasonableness of the speed of a vehicle is based on a variety of circumstances, including the time of day (day vs night), road conditions, weather conditions, traffic congestion and the presence of other vehicles and pedestrians in the path about to be traveled.[19] A motor vehicle operator approaching an intersection is not bound to make a “mathematical calculation” concerning the chances of passing safely through the intersection, but the operator should not take chances in attempting to cross an intersection where common sense would require stopping or slowing down.[20] A motorist who operates his or her vehicle above the posted speed limit for that roadway forfeits his or her statutory right-of-way over another vehicle lawfully entering the intersection at approximately the same time.[21]

Adverse weather conditions always necessitate extra precautions for drivers and the combination of bad weather and the presence of an intersection results in the need for special vigilance. More specifically, a much greater degree of care is imposed upon motorists confronted with unusual weather conditions at an intersection.[22] Rain increases the care required of a driver approaching an intersection.[23]  Where visibility is obscured, a motorist must operate his or her vehicle with consideration of the limited vision available. A truck driver has been held to have a duty to moderate speed at an intersection on a rainy and foggy night so as to be able to stop before striking anyone reasonably likely to appear in the path of the truck.[24] An unusual or complex traffic pattern imposes an exceptional degree of vigilance on drivers approaching and traversing the intersection.[25]            

            There is also a correspondingly higher degree of care that is demanded of motorists at an intersection where pedestrians are present or expected to be present.[26]  A driver has a duty to anticipate the presence of pedestrians at an intersection and to control his or her vehicle so that no harm will result.[27] Vehicles entering an intersection with a green light, or turning right or left in an intersection, must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.[28]  A pedestrian, crossing in the crosswalk at an intersection, has the superior right of way over a car.[29] 

Operators of authorized emergency vehicles are granted certain privileges that may excuse the disregard of traffic signals.[30] In addition, the directions of a uniformed police officer always take priority over any traffic control device, and a vehicle operator has no obligation to obey any traffic control device if directed otherwise by a police officer.[31] 

---

[1] For a more thorough and detailed analysis of Pennsylvania law controlling the operation of vehicles through intersections, see Dale G. Larrimore, Pennsylvania Rules of the Road, §§ 3.1-3.5 (West’s PennsylvaniaPractice Series, Vol. 13)(2015-2016).

[2] Mooney v. Kinder, 271 Pa. 485, 115 A. 826 (1922).

[3] Lieberman v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 410 Pa. 179, 188 A.2d 719 (1963).

[4] 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361.

[5] Com. v. Kaulback, 256 Pa. Super. 13, 389 A.2d 152 (1978).

[6] Cobb v. Chubeck, 399 Pa. 201, 203, 160 A.2d 207, 209 (1960).

[7] Schreckengost v. Kraft, 415 Pa. 567, 204 A.2d 646 (1964).

[8] Coventry v. Keith, 175 Pa. Super. 504, 106 A.2d 658 (1954); McMillan v. Mor Heat Oil & Equipment Co., 174 Pa. Super. 308, 101 A.2d 413 (1953).

[9] Heimburger v. Gundy, 348 Pa. 114, 34 A.2d 489 (1943); Zeigler v. Gullong, 168 Pa. Super. 637, 82 A.2d 588 (1951).

[10] Bascelli v. Bucci, 244 Pa. Super. 347, 368 A.2d 754 (1976).

[11] Jones v. Williams, 358 Pa. 559, 58 A.2d 57 (1948); Spraggins v. Shields, 310 Pa. Super. 408, 456 A.2d 1000 (1983).

[12] Imes v. Empire Hook & Ladder Co., 247 Pa. Super. 470, 372 A.2d 922 (1977).

[13] Platts v. Driscoll, 245 Pa. Super. 235, 369 A.2d 381 (1976).

[14] Andrews v. Long, 425 Pa. 152, 228 A.2d 760 (1967); Zumbo v. Ellis, 232 Pa. Super. 566, 334 A.2d 770 (1975).

[15] Smith v. Brooks, 394 Pa. Super. 327, 575 A.2d 926 (1990).

[16] Burish v. Digon, 416 Pa. 486, 206 A.2d 497 (1965).

[17] Klein v. Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285 (3d Cir.1993), citing Pokusa v. Taylor, 409 Pa. 41, 185 A.2d 331 (1962).

[18]  75 Pa.C.S. § 3361.

[19] Smith v. Brooks, 394 Pa. Super. 327, 575 A.2d 926 (1990); Bohner v. Stine, 316 Pa. Super. 426, 463 A.2d 438 (1983).

[20] Tomsel v. Green, 150 Pa. Super. 547, 549, 29 A.2d 339, 340 (1942).

[21] Schreckengost v. Kraft, 415 Pa. 567, 204 A.2d 646 (1964).

[22] Grimes v. Yellow Cab Co., 344 Pa. 298, 25 A.2d 294 (1942).

[23] Salkin v. James, 376 Pa. 205, 102 A.2d 168 (1954).

[24] Morin v. Kreidt, 310 Pa. 90, 164 A. 799 (1933).

[25] Lieberman v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 410 Pa. 179, 188 A.2d 719 (1963).

[26] Mooney v. Kinder, 271 Pa. 485, 115 A. 826 (1922); Mack v. Ferebee, 204 Pa. Super. 129, 203 A.2d 350 (1964).

[27] Lane v. Samuels, 350 Pa. 446, 39 A.2d 626 (1944).

[28] 75 Pa.C.S. §3112(a)(1)(i).

[29] Jenkins v. Wolf, 2006 PA Super 321, 911 A.2d 568 (2006).

[30] See 75 Pa.C.S. §3105, and Dale G. Larrimore, Pennsylvania Rulesof the Road, § 7.2 (West’s Pennsylvania Practice Series, Vol. 13)(2015-2016).  

[31] 75 Pa.C.S. §§3102 and 3111(a).