Title: T. STARR V. O. VENEZIANO, F. ZOTTLOA CONSTRUCTION INC. AND COM. OF PA. DEPT. OF TRANS. V. RICHLAND TWP. APLT. (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 48 W.D. APPEAL DOCKET 1998; J-31-99
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: March 24, 2000

[J-31-1999] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT TRACY LYN STARR, v. OTTAVIO C. VENEZIANO, FRANK J. ZOTTOLA CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellees v. RICHLAND TOWNSHIP Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 48 W.D. Appeal Docket 1998 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on January 9, 1998 at 610 C.D. 97, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division entered January 29, 1997 at No. GD94-11399. ARGUED: March 8, 1999 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: MARCH 24, 2000 The majority sets forth a reasonable and clear standard of proof for plaintiffs seeking to establish a municipality’s duty of care related to the installation of a traffic control device. Nevertheless, while I recognize that the standard of proof set forth by the majority is largely drawn from concepts embodied in existing case law1, I do not believe that Starr can fairly be charged with failing to recognize and meet such a standard without the benefit of the clarification provided by the majority in the instant case. Therefore, I would be inclined to 1 See generally, McCalla v. Murra, 538 Pa. 527, 646 A.2d 649 (1994); Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 531 Pa. 180, 611 A.2d 1184 (1992); Mitchell v. Borough of Rochester, 395 Pa. 373, 150 A.2d 338 (1959). 2 remand the matter for a new trial, giving Starr an opportunity to meet the standard of proof set forth by the majority. However, because the only relief requested by the Township, which lost at trial, is judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the grant of a new trial is not an appropriate form of relief. Therefore, I would not prejudice Starr by applying the majority’s clarified standard of proof on appellate review in the instant case. Accordingly, I dissent.