Court Addresses Issues Arising From Accident Between Rider Mower and Passing Motorist

In the case of Barrick v. Koontz, No. 2019-SU-001700 (C.P. York Co. Jan 8, 2024 Vedder, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in a case involving a collision between a Plaintiff on a rider lawnmower and a truck that was passing on the roadway.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff-husband, who was on the lawnmower, did not have any memory of the accident and the Plaintiff-wife was not present to witness the accident. The only individuals with any memories of the crash were the Defendant driver and a motorist who was traveling in another vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle.

The record also confirmed that the Plaintiff admitted in the case that, as the Defendant driver was driving his truck past the Plaintiff’s property, the Plaintiff’s lawnmower came off a bank and from behind a bush on the property and entered the roadway.

In his Opinion, Judge Vedder addressed multiple issues on the liability question as presented by both sides of the case, including issues regarding the law of negligence, duties owed when entering roadways, expert issues, the last clear chance doctrine, the assured clear distance ahead rule and the mere happening of an accident rule. In the end, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to produce evidence to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the Defendants, specifically with respect to the alleged breach of any duty.

As noted, the court entered summary judgement in favor of the Defendant motorist.    

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Stephen M. Hickey of the York, PA law firm of Griffith, Lerman, Lutz & Scheib for bringing this case to my attention.

Application of Sudden Emergency Rule Upheld; Also, Evidence of Post-Accident Alterations of Road by PennDOT Not Admissible

In the case of Mitchell v. Milburn, No. 344 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 6, 2018 McCullough, Leavitt, and Cannon, J.) (Op. by McCullough, J.), the court ruled that the sudden emergency doctrine is an absolute defense to an allegation of negligence and is available to any Defendant who suddenly and unexpectedly finds himself or herself confronted with a perilous situation that permits no opportunity to assess the danger and respond appropriately.

The Plaintiff sued the two other drivers involved in the accident and also sued PennDOT apparently relative to the design of the intersection. 

The Plaintiff settled on a joint tort basis with the rear ending Defendant prior to trial for an unspecified amount, with the agreement being that that Defendant would remain on the verdict slip for purposes of apportioning the percentages of liability amongst the parties.  The other driver Defendant secured a non-suit under the facts presented.

The jury entered a $2.3 million dollar verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and assessed 100% of the liability on the rear-ending Defendant who had settled out prior to trial. 

The Plaintiff filed post-trial motions relative to the entry of a non-suit in favor of the driver-Defendant and relative to the trial court's refusal to allow into evidence the fact that PennDOT altered the intersection after this accident.

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s version of the accident that she was hit from behind and shoved to the Defendant’s oncoming traffic lane established a sudden emergency as a matter of law from the perspective of the Defendant approaching in the oncoming lane.  

When reviewing the trial court's entry of a non-suit in favor of the oncoming Defendant-driver, the Commonwealth Court additionally relied upon the well-settled rule of law that a mere happening of an accident is not evidence of negligence.  

Also of note in this decision is the Commonwealth Court’s ruling that Defendant PennDOT’s subsequent alteration of the intersection was inadmissible in the case as evidence of a subsequent remedial measure.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia offices of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.