In the case of Dailey v. Smith, No. 2024 Pa. Super. 235 (Pa. Super. Oct. 10, 2024 Collins, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Collins, J.) (McLaughlin, J. dissenting), the Superior Court reversed a trial court’s decision to remove comparative negligence issues from the jury's consideration in a motor vehicle accident case.
According to the Superior Court’s Opinion, in the trial below, Plaintiff admitted to speeding at the time of the accident.
As such, the appellate court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in removing the issue of Plaintiff’s comparative negligence from the jury’s consideration. The Superior Court noted that where there is evidence in a case that a Plaintiff was negligent and that the Plaintiff’s negligence may have caused the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, such issues must be allowed to proceed to a jury.
The appellate court noted that speeding is not just mere negligence, but could be negligence per se.
The Superior Court additionally confirmed that causation and routine automobile accident negligence cases do not require expert testimony on the liability issues. In this case, neither side had an expert on the liability issues presented.
The appellate court noted that a vehicle's speed could have affected both the time to avoid a collision and the forces involved in the collision.
The Superior Court noted that the jury in this case was incorrectly prevented from considering the causal effect of the Plaintiff’s speed. The appellate court noted that this evidence was not only important to the liability issues but also was intertwined with the damages issues as the evidence implicates whether, if at all, the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle contributed to the Plaintiff’s own injuries.
In the Dissenting Opinion, Judge McLaughlin asserted that the Plaintiff's speed should not have been considered because, even if the Plaintiff was speeding, although this does amount to negligence per se, there was no evidence to conclude that the accident would not have happened if the Plaintiff was not speeding and/or that there was no evidence that, if the Plaintiff was traveling slower, the Plaintiff's injuries would have been less.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.