assured clear distance ahead rule in Pennsylvania

31 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1970–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (26)

Case	Followed	Cited
Unangst v. Whitehousegreen pasuperct · 1975 · cited in 11 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1975–2014 2 sentences 2005Unangst v. Whitehouse, 235 Pa. Super. 458 , 344 A.2d 695 (1975) (holding that the assured clear distance ahead rule does not apply where another vehicle darts into the driver’s path within his assured clear distance). 2005Unangst v. Whitehouse, 235 Pa. Super. 458 , 344 A.2d 695 (1975) (holding that the assured clear distance ahead rule does not apply where another vehicle darts into the driver’s path within his assured clear distance).	7	11
Brown v. Schrivergreen pasuperct · 1978 · cited in 7 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1981–2014 2 sentences 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst	3	7
Cunningham v. Byersgreen pasuperct · 1999 · cited in 4 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2005–2015 2 sentences 2015As reiterated in Matroni, “the assured clear distance ahead rule applies to essentially static or static objects including vehicles moving in the same direction[.]” Matroni, 932 A.2d at 453 citing Cunningham v. Byers, 732 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. Super. 1999) (additional citations omitted). 2007As a panel of this Court explained in Cunningham v. Byers, 732 A.2d 655 (Pa.Super.1999): Generally a jury should not be instructed on both the assured clear distance ahead rule and the sudden emergency doctrine since the two are mutually exclusive.	2	4
Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc.green pa · 1939 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1973–1975 2 sentences 1975Unangst v. Whitehouse, supra. See Francis v. Henry, 399 Pa. 369 , 160 A.2d 455 (1960); Fleischman v. Reading, 388 Pa. 183 , 130 A.2d 429 (1957); Schofield v. Druschel, 359 Pa. 630 , 59 A.2d 919 (1948); Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 335 Pa. 236 , 5 A.2d 224 (1939); Reifel v. Hershey Estates, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 212 , 295 A.2d 138 (1972); Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 1143 , aff'd, 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir. 1973); Greene v. Morelli Bros., 463 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1972); Snook v. Long, 241 Iowa 665 , 42 N.W.2d 76 (1950); Cerny v. Domer, 13 Ohio St. 2d 117 , 235 N.E.2d 132 (1968 1975Unangst v. Whitehouse, supra. See Francis v. Henry, 399 Pa. 369 , 160 A.2d 455 (1960); Fleischman v. Reading, 388 Pa. 183 , 130 A.2d 429 (1957); Schofield v. Druschel, 359 Pa. 630 , 59 A.2d 919 (1948); Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 335 Pa. 236 , 5 A.2d 224 (1939); Reifel v. Hershey Estates, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 212 , 295 A.2d 138 (1972); Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 1143 , aff'd, 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir. 1973); Greene v. Morelli Bros., 463 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1972); Snook v. Long, 241 Iowa 665 , 42 N.W.2d 76 (1950); Cerny v. Domer, 13 Ohio St. 2d 117 , 235 N.E.2d 132 (1968	2	3
Fleischman v. Readinggreen pa · 1957 · cited in 4 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1975–2016 2 sentences 2016Th[e Supreme] Court discussed the assured clear distance ahead rule at some length in Fleischman v. City of -5- J-A33033-15 Reading, 130 A.2d 429 (Pa. 1957). 1995This Court discussed the assured clear distance ahead rule at some length in Fleischman v. City of Reading, 388 Pa. 183 , 130 A.2d 429 (1957).	1	4
Levey v. DeNardogreen pa · 1999 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1999–2014 2 sentences 2014Our Supreme Court reasoned that neither Elder nor Cannon compelled the conclusion that where an accident involves motorists traveling in the same direction, only the first driver can invoke the sudden emergency doctrine. 9 More significantly, however, our Supreme Court again “cautioned against [] rigid adherence to the distinction between static and moving objects in determining the applicability of the assured clear distance ahead rule and the sudden emergency doctrine.” Levey, 725 A.2d at 736 . 2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred “by faffing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule[.]” Specifically, she contends that the trial court’s recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction.	1	3
Elder v. Orluckgreen pa · 1985 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1994–2007 2 sentences 1999This is based on the rationale that the assured clear distance ahead rule applies to essentially static or static objects including vehicles moving in the same direction, while the sudden emergency doctrine applies only to moving instrumentalities thrust into a driver’s path of travel. 1 Elder, 483 A.2d at 482 . 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst	1	3
Lockhart v. Listgreen pa · 1995 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1999–2005 2 sentences 2005This is based on the rationale that the assured clear distance ahead rule applies to essentially static or static objects including vehicles moving in the same direction, while the sudden emergency doctrine applies only to moving instrumentalities thrust into a driver’s path of travel.” Id. at 658 . (citations omitted) (footnote omitted) In Lockhart, supra at 154 , 665 A.2d at 1182 , the Supreme Court made the same distinction, noting that “this court agrees generally with the Superior Court’s distinction between fixed and moving objects since it is quite reasonable to hold a person accountabl 2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred “by faffing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule[.]” Specifically, she contends that the trial court’s recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction.	1	3
Papandrea v. Hartmangreen pa · 1986 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1993–1995 2 sentences 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978). 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978).	1	3
McElhinny v. Iliffgreen pa · 1970 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1971–1987 2 sentences 1971However, the trial court’s charge on the assured clear distance ahead rule was so confusing as to warrant the awarding of a new trial. 39 Our most recent discussion of the assured clear distance rule is contained in our opinion in Stano v. Rearick, 441 Pa. 72 , 271 A. 2d 251 (1970), where we quoted at length from McElhinny v. Iliff, 436 Pa. 506, 509-510 , 260 A. 2d 739, 740 (1970) : “The ‘assured clear distance ahead rule’ finds its statutory genesis in The Vehicle Code, Act of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, 973, §1002, as amended, which provides in part: ‘. . . no person shall drive any vehicle, up 1971However, the trial court’s charge on the assured clear distance ahead rule was so confusing as to warrant the awarding of a new trial. 39 Our most recent discussion of the assured clear distance rule is contained in our opinion in Stano v. Rearick, 441 Pa. 72 , 271 A. 2d 251 (1970), where we quoted at length from McElhinny v. Iliff, 436 Pa. 506, 509-510 , 260 A. 2d 739, 740 (1970) : “The ‘assured clear distance ahead rule’ finds its statutory genesis in The Vehicle Code, Act of May 1, 1929, P. L. 905, 973, §1002, as amended, which provides in part: ‘. . . no person shall drive any vehicle, up	1	3
McKEE BY McKEE v. Evansgreen pa · 1988 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1994–1999 2 sentences 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst	1	2
Fish v. Gosnellgreen pa · 1983 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1990–1994 2 sentences 1990Previously, we have held that “the applicability of the assured clear distance ahead rule is generally a question of fact for the jury, especially if the facts are disputed or dependant upon the credibility of oral testimony.” Fish v. Gosnell, 316 Pa.Super. 565 , 463 A.2d 1042 (1983). 1990Previously, we have held that “the applicability of the assured clear distance ahead rule is generally a question of fact for the jury, especially if the facts are disputed or dependant upon the credibility of oral testimony.” Fish v. Gosnell, 316 Pa.Super. 565 , 463 A.2d 1042 (1983).	1	2
Mickey v. Ayersgreen pa · 1984 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1989–1994 2 sentences 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst	1	2
Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc.green paed · 1973 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1975–1984 2 sentences 1984Appellants contend, however, that (1) a court may not charge a jury as to the assured clear distance ahead rule when a sudden emergency arises, and (2) in any event, under the facts of this case, the rule does not apply. “[T]he rule requires that such control be maintained as will enable 518 a driver to stop and avoid obstructions that fall within his vision." Unangst v. Whitehouse, 235 Pa.Superior Ct. 458, 463, 344 A.2d 695, 698 (emphasis added). “[I]t is entirely reasonable to say that one should not run into a stationary object on the road which is, and has been, in plain view for everyone 1975*Unangst v. Whitehouse, supra. See Francis v. Henry, 399 Pa. 369 , 160 A.2d 455 (1960); Fleischman v. Reading, 388 Pa. 183 , 130 A.2d 429 (1957); Schofield v. Druschel, 359 Pa. 630 , 59 A.2d 919 (1948); Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., 335 Pa. 236 , 5 A.2d 224 (1939); Reifel v. Hershey Estates, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 212 , 295 A.2d 138 (1972); Flick v. James Monfredo, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 1143 , aff'd, 487 F.2d 1394 (3d Cir. 1973); Greene v. Morelli Bros., 463 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1972); Snook v. Long, 241 Iowa 665 , 42 N.W.2d 76 (1950); Cerny v. Domer, 13 Ohio St. 2d 117 , 235 N.E.2d 132 (1968	1	2
McClintock v. Worksgreen pasuperct · 1998 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 1 sentence 1999McClintock v. Works, 716 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Pa.Super.1998). ¶ 6 In the instant case, the trial court instructed the jury on both the assured clear distance ahead rule and the sudden emergency doctrine.	1	1
Springer v. Luptowskigreen pa · 1993 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995This Court was presented with similar facts more recently in Springer v. Luptowski, 535 Pa. 332 , 635 A.2d 134 (1993), wherein a majority of this Court upheld the trial court’s instruction to the jury that the plaintiffs’ decedent had violated the assured clear distance ahead rule and was, therefore, negligent as a matter of law. 1995This Court was presented with similar facts more recently in Springer v. Luptowski, 535 Pa. 332 , 635 A.2d 134 (1993), wherein a majority of this Court upheld the trial court’s instruction to the jury that the plaintiffs’ decedent had violated the assured clear distance ahead rule and was, therefore, negligent as a matter of law.	1	1
Polumbo v. Destefanogreen pasuperct · 1984 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Smith v. Brooksgreen pa · 1990 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994Smith v. Brooks, 394 Pa.Super. 327, 338 , 575 A.2d 926, 932 (1990); Fish v. Gosnell, 316 Pa.Super. 565, 579-80 , 463 A.2d 1042, 1050 (1983). 1994Smith v. Brooks, 394 Pa.Super. 327, 338 , 575 A.2d 926, 932 (1990); Fish v. Gosnell, 316 Pa.Super. 565, 579-80 , 463 A.2d 1042, 1050 (1983).	1	1
Cannon v. Taborgreen pasuperct · 1994 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Spearing v. Starchergreen pa · 1987 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989	1	1
Cervone v. Readinggreen pa · 1988 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989	1	1
McEwan v. Yellow Cab Companygreen pasuperct · 1956 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987	1	1
Archer v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co.green pasuperct · 1949 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987	1	1
Turner v. SMITHgreen pasuperct · 1975 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982	1	1
Reich v. Millergreen iowa · 1967 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1
Schofield v. Druschelgreen pa · 1948 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (31)

Case	Cited	Years
Sullivan v. Wolson green pasuperct · 1978 2 sentences 2014See e.g., Unangst v. Whitehouse [ 235 Pa.Super. 458 ], 344 A.2d 695 (Pa.Super.1975); Sullivan v. Wolson [ 262 Pa.Super. 397 ], 396 A.2d 1230 (Pa.Super.1978); Brown v. Schriver [ 254 Pa.Super. 468 ], 386 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super.1978). 2014See e.g., Unangst v. Whitehouse [ 235 Pa.Super. 458 ], 344 A.2d 695 (Pa.Super.1975); Sullivan v. Wolson [ 262 Pa.Super. 397 ], 396 A.2d 1230 (Pa.Super.1978); Brown v. Schriver [ 254 Pa.Super. 468 ], 386 A.2d 45 (Pa.Super.1978).	3	1981–2014
Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc. green pasuperct · 1978 2 sentences 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978). 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978).	3	1993–1995
Metro v. Long Transportation Co. green pa · 1956 2 sentences 1970The assured clear distance ahead rule was established as a common-law principle and is imbedded in The Vehicle Code by statute: Griffith v. Weiner, 373 Pa. 184 , 95 A. 2d 517 (1953); Metro v. Long Transportation Company, 387 Pa. 354 , 127 A. 2d 716 (1956). 1970The assured clear distance ahead rule was established as a common-law principle and is imbedded in The Vehicle Code by statute: Griffith v. Weiner, 373 Pa. 184 , 95 A. 2d 517 (1953); Metro v. Long Transportation Company, 387 Pa. 354 , 127 A. 2d 716 (1956).	3	1970–1978
Enfield v. Stout green pa · 1960 2 sentences 1978For the sake of expediency, we will quote the germane portion of Unangst v. Whitehouse at length: “Originally a common law principle, the ‘assured clear distance ahead’ rule is a part of The Vehicle Code, Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, § 102, as amended, 75 P.S. § 1002 (1971), which provides, inter alia, that ‘no person shall drive any vehicle, upon a highway . . . at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.’ 3 The assured clear distance ahead rule has been held to require that a driver operate his vehicle in such a manner that 1978For the sake of expediency, we will quote the germane portion of Unangst v. Whitehouse at length: “Originally a common law principle, the ‘assured clear distance ahead’ rule is a part of The Vehicle Code, Act of May 1, 1929, P.L. 905, § 102, as amended, 75 P.S. § 1002 (1971), which provides, inter alia, that ‘no person shall drive any vehicle, upon a highway . . . at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.’ 3 The assured clear distance ahead rule has been held to require that a driver operate his vehicle in such a manner that	3	1971–1978
Potenburg v. Varner green pasuperct · 1981 2 sentences 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978). 1995See Papandrea v. Hartman, 352 Pa.Super. 163 , 507 A.2d 822 (1986); Potenburg v. Varner, 284 Pa.Super. 19 , 424 A.2d 1370 (1981); Stacy v. Thrower Trucking, Inc., 253 Pa.Super. 150 , 384 A.2d 1274 (1978).	2	1994–1995
REIFEL v. Hershey Estates green pasuperct · 1972 2 sentences 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst 1994Where a sudden emergency arises inside the range of the previously assured clear distance ahead, the assured clear distance ahead rule is inapplicable, see Dranzo v. Winterhalter, supra 395 Pa.Super. at 593-94 , 577 A.2d at 1357 ; McKee by McKee v. Evans, supra 380 Pa.Super. at 150 n. 5, 551 A.2d at 274 n. 5; Mickey v. Ayers, supra 336 Pa.Super. at 516-20 , 485 A.2d at 1202-1203 ; Elder v. Orluck, supra 334 Pa.Super. at 341-43 , 483 A.2d at 481-482 ; Polumbo v. DeStefano, 329 Pa.Super. 360, 364 , 478 A.2d 828, 831 (1984); Brown v. Schriver, supra 254 Pa.Super. at 474 , 386 A.2d at 48 ; Unangst	2	1975–1994
Koelle v. Philadelphia Electric Co. green pa · 1971 2 sentences 1987Koelle v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 443 Pa. 35 , 277 A.2d 350 (1971); Unangst v. Whitehouse, 235 Pa.Superior Ct. 458, 344 A.2d 695 (1975). 1987Koelle v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 443 Pa. 35 , 277 A.2d 350 (1971); Unangst v. Whitehouse, 235 Pa.Superior Ct. 458, 344 A.2d 695 (1975).	2	1983–1987
cluster 304558 green ca3 · 1972 2 sentences 1975Fleischman v. Reading, supra; Schofield v. Druschel, supra; Long v. Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., supra; Greene v. Morelli Bros., supra. 169 The jury should have been charged that if they found that appellant crested the hill and encountered appellee in the wrong lane and coming towards him, they should not apply the assured clear distance ahead rule but should judge appellant's conduct by the other standards of care upon which they had been instructed. 1975*Cf. Greene v. Morelli Bros., supra. The assured clear distance ahead rule is thus not applicable where an instrumentality moves into the driver’s path within a distance short of the assured clear distance ahead.	2	1975–1975
Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg green connappct · 2007 1 sentence 2015As reiterated in Matroni, “the assured clear distance ahead rule applies to essentially static or static objects including vehicles moving in the same direction[.]” Matroni, 932 A.2d at 453 citing Cunningham v. Byers, 732 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. Super. 1999) (additional citations omitted).	1	2015–2015
Hrivnak v. Perrone green pa · 1977 2 sentences 1995Hrivnak v. Perrone, 472 Pa. 348 , 372 A.2d 730 (1977). 148 Both the assured clear distance ahead rule and the sudden emergency doctrine, which are most often employed in cases arising out of a motor vehicle accident, are well established in our case law. 2 Given the fact specific nature of motor vehicle accident cases, however, the application of these two doctrines in our case law, either in isolation or in conjunction with each other, is somewhat varied rendering a precise and absolute rule of law thereon rather elusive. 1995Hrivnak v. Perrone, 472 Pa. 348 , 372 A.2d 730 (1977). 148 Both the assured clear distance ahead rule and the sudden emergency doctrine, which are most often employed in cases arising out of a motor vehicle accident, are well established in our case law. 2 Given the fact specific nature of motor vehicle accident cases, however, the application of these two doctrines in our case law, either in isolation or in conjunction with each other, is somewhat varied rendering a precise and absolute rule of law thereon rather elusive.	1	1995–1995
Liuzzo v. McKay green pa · 1959 2 sentences 1995Liuzzo v. McKay, 396 Pa. 183 , 152 A.2d 265 (1959). 1995Liuzzo v. McKay, 396 Pa. 183 , 152 A.2d 265 (1959).	1	1995–1995
Sweitzer v. Dempster Systems green pa · 1988 2 sentences 1994The appellants argue that they are entitled to a new trial since the court instructed the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule. 2 The principles which govern our review of such a claim are well settled: In reviewing alleged error in jury instructions we apply the standard recited in Sweitzer v. Dempster Systems, 372 Pa.Super. 449 , 539 A.2d 880 (1988), as follows: Where the motion for a new trial is based upon the sufficiency of the jury charge, we must examine the charge in its entirety against the background of the evidence to determine whether error was committed. 1994The appellants argue that they are entitled to a new trial since the court instructed the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule. 2 The principles which govern our review of such a claim are well settled: In reviewing alleged error in jury instructions we apply the standard recited in Sweitzer v. Dempster Systems, 372 Pa.Super. 449 , 539 A.2d 880 (1988), as follows: Where the motion for a new trial is based upon the sufficiency of the jury charge, we must examine the charge in its entirety against the background of the evidence to determine whether error was committed.	1	1994–1994
cluster 276008 green ca3 · 1967	1	1994–1994
Hollern v. Verhovsek green pasuperct · 1971 2 sentences 1994Hollerne v. Verhovsek, [ 220 Pa.Super. 343 , 287 A.2d 145 (1971)]; Mihalic v. Texaco, Inc., [ 377 F.2d 978 (3d Cir.1967)]. 1994Hollerne v. Verhovsek, [ 220 Pa.Super. 343 , 287 A.2d 145 (1971)]; Mihalic v. Texaco, Inc., [ 377 F.2d 978 (3d Cir.1967)].	1	1994–1994
Dranzo v. Winterhalter green pa · 1990	1	1994–1994
Ernst v. Ace Motor Sales, Inc. green paed · 1982	1	1988–1988
Archer v. Pennsylvania Railroad green pasuperct · 1950	1	1987–1987
McErlean v. McCartan green pasuperct · 1980	1	1981–1981
DeJohn v. Orell green pa · 1968	1	1981–1981
Notarianni v. Ross green pa · 1956	1	1980–1980
Rich v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc. green · 1947	1	1978–1978
Wells v. Wildin green iowa · 1938	1	1975–1975
Snook v. Long green iowa · 1950	1	1975–1975
Alexander v. Saks green ca3 · 1973	1	1975–1975
Cerny v. Domer green ohio · 1968	1	1975–1975
Francis v. Henry green pa · 1960	1	1975–1975
Stano v. REARICK green pa · 1970	1	1971–1971
Haines v. Dulaney green pa · 1967	1	1970–1970
Griffith v. Weiner green pa · 1953	1	1970–1970
Weibel v. Ferguson green pa · 1941	1	1970–1970
Hutchinson v. Follmer Trucking Co. green pa · 1939	1	1970–1970

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3361 (8)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 31 (1970–2016) OH 24 (1941–2023) IA 4 (1939–1974) MI 4 (1960–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check