Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

You’re driving along when your car betrays you; engine trouble comes for us all. You pull to the side of the road and start working on how to resolve your car issues. BAM! Another vehicle slams into yours. Who’s at fault?

While the circumstances of any individual accident will dictate the allegations and defenses, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to familiarize yourself with Pennsylvania’s “assured clear distance rule.”Pennsylvania law requires that vehicles be driven at a safe speed.

The law states that:

No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing, nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. 75 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3361 (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has stated that the “assured clear distance rule, which requires a motorist to be capable of stopping within the distance that he can clearly see, has long been recognized by this Court.” Springer v. Luptowski, 635 A.2d 134, 136 (Pa. 1993) (citing Haines v. Dulaney, 227 A.2d 625 (Pa. 1967); Metro v. Long Transportation Co., 127 A.2d 716, 719–20 (Pa. 1956); Weibel v. Ferguson, 19 A.2d 357, 360 (Pa. 1941); Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Co., 5 A.2d 182, 183–84 (Pa. 1939); Gaber v. Weinberg, 188 A. 187 (Pa. 1936)). In Springer, a motorist traveling on a two-lane road rounded a curve and “encountered two vehicles stopped side by side on the roadway” blocking both lanes. Id. at 135. At trial, the “court instructed the jury … that [plaintiff’s decedent] was negligent as a matter of law for violating the assured clear distance ahead rule.” Id. On appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the Court ruled that it “has repeatedly held that, where a violation of the assured clear distance rule has been clearly established by the evidence, the violation can be deemed negligence as a matter of law.” Id. at 136. The Court also opined that "the Vehicle and Traffic Code clearly provides, in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3361, supra, that motorists must drive at speeds slow enough to allow their vehicles to be brought to a safe stop within the assured clear distance ahead. The same provision expressly sets forth a duty to drive at a safe and appropriate speed ‘when going around [a] curve’ …. Accordingly, we have consistently upheld the duty of motorists traversing curves and hill crests to travel at speeds slow enough to avoid colliding with unexpected obstructions on the roadway. E.g., Haines v. Dulaney, 424 Pa. at 611–12, 227 A.2d at 626–27 (curves); Hogg v. Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co., 373 Pa. 632, 638–39, 96 A.2d 879, 882–83 (1953) (hill crests). Such obstructions include, of course, vehicles parked on the roadway. Haines v. Dulaney, supra. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to instruct the jury that the plaintiff had been negligent as a matter of law.[1]"

What’s the takeaway? Let’s go back to the scenario at the beginning, you’ve pulled over because of car trouble and then an accident occurred. Thereafter, litigation ensues and you’re being sued for negligence. (and possibly other claims), but at the very least your familiarity with the assured clear distance rule will allow you to put up a defense, and not only one that calls the possibility of the other party’s own negligence into question, but one which, in Pennsylvania, establishes negligence as a matter of law.

[1] See also Lockhart v. List, 665 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Pa. 1995); Cannon v. Tabor, 642 A.2d 1108, 1111 (Pa. Super. 1994).