That his speed brought him to the place of the accident at the moment of the accident was the merest chance, and a thing which no foresight could have predicted. The same thing might as readily have happened to a car running slowly, or it might have been that a high speed alone would have carried him beyond the tree to a place of safety.
Appellee motorman was operating a car on a street of the appellant borough when a tree that was on the line of the road and within the borough limits was blown down on top of the car and injured him. The trial court entered judgment for the motorman. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding that the fact that the motorman was operating at a speed greater than that permitted by an ordinance which allowed his employer to operate its cars on the borough's streets did not affect his right to recover.
Did appellee's driving speed, which exceeded the borough's limits, preclude his right to recover for the injuries he sustained?
The court found that the speed at which the motorman was traveling did not contribute to the cause of the accident. The court found that although the motorman may have been in violation of the speed provisions of the ordinance, his right to be on the street was not affected.