Title: Pachesky v. Getz
Citation: 353 Pa. Super. 505, 510 A.2d 776
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 1986

353 Pa. Superior Ct. 505 (1986) 510 A.2d 776 Ruth J. PACHESKY and Robert Pachesky, her husband, Appellants, v. Frank D. GETZ, Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued February 24, 1986. Filed May 29, 1986. *507 James Cole, Pittsburgh, for appellants. John E. Wall, Pittsburgh, for appellee. Before CIRILLO, President Judge and CAVANAUGH, BROSKY, WIEAND, McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI, DEL SOLE, MONTEMURO and TAMILIA, JJ. MONTEMURO, Judge: On December 6, 1978, appellant, Ruth J. Pachesky, was injured during an attempt to rescue appellee, Frank D. Getz. Ms. Pachesky and her husband, Robert Pachesky [hereinafter appellants], thereafter commenced an action against appellee in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. On September 25, 28 and 30, 1981, this case was tried before the Honorable I. Martin Wekselman and a jury. Responding to special interrogatories propounded by the court below, the jury found that: (1) both Ms. Pachesky and appellee were negligent; (2) their respective negligent acts or omissions were substantial factors in bringing about Ms. *508 Pachesky's injuries; and (3) of the total causal negligence, 20% was attributable to appellee and 80% was attributable to Ms. Pachesky. In light of these findings, the court below entered a verdict in favor of appellee. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102. On October 9, 1981, appellants filed a motion for new trial, which was briefed and argued by the parties, and subsequently denied by the court below in an order dated July 13, 1983. Judgment was entered on the verdict and this timely appeal followed. As ably set forth in the opinion of the court below, the unfortunate circumstances giving rise to this action are the following: Lower court opinion, 1-2. The issues presented by appellants for our review are: (1) whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) whether the court below erred with respect to its jury instruction on "proximate causation"; and (3) whether the court below "erred in refusing to instruct the jury that when a plaintiff is injured while attempting to rescue a defendant who negligently placed himself in a position of peril the plaintiff cannot be found contributorily negligent unless the plaintiff's actions were rash or wanton." Appellants' brief, 3. Appellants' first issue need not detain us. In Sperrazza v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 313 Pa. Super. 60, 459 A.2d 409 (1983), we reiterated standards of review equally pertinent to the case sub judice: *510 Id. 313 Pa.Super. at 64-65 n. 3, 459 A.2d at 411 n. 3. See Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. 592, 493 A.2d 669 (1985). Furthermore, we are mindful in this regard that, Prescott v. Prescott, 284 Pa.Super. 430, 435, 426 A.2d 123, 125 (1981). Appellants' specific contention is that the jury's attribution to Ms. Pachesky of a greater percentage of the causal negligence was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court below rejoined this contention with the following: Lower court opinion, 3. While appellee's causal negligence, as demonstrated by the record, was patently not insignificant, our sense of justice is nevertheless unoffended by the jury's apportionment. Not only are we unable to find any "palpable abuse of discretion" on the part of the court below with respect to this issue, we are of the opinion that the court's evidential analysis and subsequent disposition were quite proper. Prefacing its charge as to "proximate causation", the court below instructed the jury that, "Proximate means immediate, nearest, next in order, and in its legal sense, closest in causal connection." N.T., 85. Appellants assign this instruction as reversible error. Specifically, appellants argue that, on the basis of this instruction, the jury may have mistakenly concluded that appellee's negligence was not actionable in that Ms. Pachesky's acts were temporally supervenient; i.e., appellee's acts could not be viewed as "nearest" or "closest" and therefore "proximate". Not only is appellants' contention belied by the jury's ultimate attribution of 20% of the causative negligence to appellee, considering the totality of the charge on "proximate causation", any error with regard to the portion complained of clearly does not warrant reversal. In Riddle Memorial Hospital v. Dohan, 504 Pa. 571, 475 A.2d 1314 (1984), our supreme court observed: Id., 504 Pa. at 576, 475 A.2d at 1316. See also Naccarati v. Garrett, 351 Pa.Super. 437, 506 A.2d 428 (1986). Immediately following its definitional instruction with respect to the word "proximate", the court below offered a full explication of the legal theory of "proximate causation", charging: N.T., 85. Additionally, responding to a request by the jurors for a legal definition of the word "substantial", the court below subsequently supplemented its charge, stating: Id. at 114-15. We are of the opinion that the court's instructions as they specifically related to the overall concept of proximate, or "legal", causation were in complete consonance with the current state of the pertinent law of this Commonwealth. In Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978), our supreme court offered the following elucidation: Id. 481 Pa. at 265, 392 A.2d at 1284. See also E.J. Stewart, Inc. v. Aitken Products, Inc., 607 F. Supp. 883, 889 (E.D. Pa. 1985); Baum v. United States, 541 F. Supp. 1349 (M.D. Pa. 1982); McKnight v. City of Philadelphia, 299 Pa.Super. 327, 445 A.2d 778 (1982); Pa. SSJI (Civ) 3.25. A finding of proximate causation must implicitly embody both a finding of "causation-in-fact" and a finding that the alleged negligence was a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury. The jury in the instant case was thoroughly and accurately apprised of those requisites. While the prefatory instruction with regard to the word "proximate" may have been inartful and unnecessarily limiting,[1] given its relation herein to the applicable doctrine of causation, viewing the relevant instructions in toto, we are unable to discern any appreciable prejudice that may have operated to *514 appellants' detriment. Therefore, we expressly decline to find reversible error.[2] Having resolved the preceding two issues against appellants, we now confront perhaps the most challenging of the three issues to be considered. As we said, appellants allege that the court below "erred in refusing to instruct the jury that when a plaintiff is injured while attempting to rescue a defendant who negligently placed himself in a position of peril the plaintiff cannot be found contributorily negligent unless the plaintiff's actions were rash or wanton." Appellants' brief, 3. Conversely, appellants challenge the instruction actually given as a "misleading and erroneous" statement of the relevant legal principle. The court below instructed, in pertinent part: *515 N.T., 87. Therefore, we are directed by this appeal to consider the current posture of the so-called "rescue doctrine" (otherwise known as the "danger-invites-rescue doctrine") in this Commonwealth. In 1921, Justice Benjamin Cardozo declared with his customary verve: Wagner v. International R. Co., 232 N.Y. 176, 180, 133 N.E. 437, 437-38 (1921).[3] Speaking through Justice J. Hay Brown, our own supreme court had previously posited: Corbin v. City of Philadelphia, 195 Pa. 461, 468-69, 45 A. 1070, 1072 (1900). One of the more complete, and certainly more recent, statements of this doctrine is contained in the opinion of the Georgia Court of Appeals in Walker Hauling Company v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620, 139 S.E.2d 496 (1964): Id. at 624, 139 S.E.2d at 499. See also Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge &amp; Dock Co., Inc., 755 F.2d 1085 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 136, 88 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1985); Altamuro v. Milner Hotel, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 870 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Korte, 357 So. 2d 228 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1978); Padilla v. Hooks International, Inc., 99 N.M. 121, 654 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 99 N.M. 148, 655 P.2d 160 (1982); Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis.2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (Wis. 1977). *517 Against this rather colorful doctrinal backdrop, appellants would appear to be correct in urging that a rescuer's contributory negligence is legally manifested only by his/her rashness or wantonness. However, it must be kept in mind that the rescue doctrine has traditionally existed only in so far as to serve the dual purposes of (1) establishing a causal connection between a defendant's negligence and a plaintiff/rescuer's injury, and (2) eliminating the absolute defense of contributory negligence. See Korte, supra, 357 So. 2d at 230. "The purpose of the rescue doctrine when it was first created was to avoid a plaintiff being found contributorily negligent as a matter of law when he voluntarily placed himself in a perilous position to prevent another person from suffering serious injury or death." 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 419 (1971). In short, the rescue doctrine has permitted rescuing plaintiffs access to the courthouse despite the volitional nature of their rescue efforts and further permitted recovery, once therein, from negligent defendants despite the unreasonableness of the plaintiffs' acts as long as that unreasonableness did not amount to wantonness. The law, in these circumstances, has clearly harbored a high regard for human life and its preservation. See Scott v. John H. Hampshire, Inc., 246 Md. 171, 227 A.2d 751 (1967). In 1976, this Commonwealth, long a jurisdiction wherein the contributory negligence of a plaintiff, no matter how insignificant, barred recovery in a negligence action,[4] adopted a system of comparative fault apportionment. Our current comparative negligence statute provides in pertinent part: 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102 (emphasis supplied). The existence of two negligent acts or omissions, on the part of a plaintiff and a defendant respectively, triggers the invocation of section 7102's provisions. See Carrender v. Fitterer. 503 Pa. 178, 469 A.2d 120 (1983). The absolute defense of a plaintiff's contributory negligence has been abolished.[5] Accordingly, in that the "wantonness" standard exhorted by appellants developed as an amelioration of the harshness of the contributory negligence rule in rescue cases, the advent of our system of comparative fault necessitates the reevaluation of the continued usefulness of that standard. For guidance, we turn first to our sister state, Wisconsin. Wisconsin's "contributory negligence" statute, Wis.Stat. Ann. § 895.045 (1983), is, in all relevant respects, identical to our "comparative negligence" statute.[6] In Cords, supra., the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered the applicability of the rescue doctrine in an action involving comparative fault. The court concluded: Cords, 80 Wis.2d at 548, 259 N.W.2d at 683. *519 In Korte, supra, the Florida District Court of Appeal[7] similarly found: Korte, 357 So. 2d at 230. We are persuaded as to the wisdom of these holdings. When a plaintiff performs a rescue in a reasonable manner, he/she is entitled to full recovery from the negligent defendant for all damages occasioned thereby. However, when a plaintiff acts unreasonably, that is, in a negligent fashion, in performing a rescue, the relative causal negligence of the parties should be apportioned in accordance with the provisions of section 7102. We hasten to add that the rescue doctrine is clearly not subsumed by our system of comparative negligence. Of the previously articulated dual purposes which the doctrine served, the doctrine continues to serve the vital, albeit singular, purpose of establishing a causal connection between a defendant's negligence and a plaintiff/rescuer's injury, which in turn leaves open the courthouse door.[8] *520 Returning to the instruction at issue, we find that the court below was eminently correct in directing the jury to allow for Ms. Pachesky's full recovery if the jury found her, as the rescuer, to have acted "reasonably". The jury, as factfinder, found otherwise and, in accordance with the further instructions of the court below, the jury appropriately assigned to Ms. Pachesky a percentage of the causative negligence.[9] In light of the foregoing, we affirm the judgment entered below. Judgment affirmed. CIRILLO, President Judge, BROSKY, WIEAND, DEL SOLE and TAMILIA, JJ., join in opinion for affirmance. OLSZEWSKI, J., files concurring opinion. McEWEN, J. joins in concurring opinion. CAVANAUGH, J. files dissenting opinion. *521 OLSZEWSKI, Judge, concurring: I agree with the well reasoned disposition of the majority except for the final issue dealing with the jury instruction and the Rescue Doctrine. As recited by the lower court and adopted by the majority, appellant's injuries resulted from her attempt to aid appellee. Noticing his car stopped with the engine running and fearing the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning, appellant shut off the engine. Since the car was still in gear at this time, it began to roll, knocking her to the ground and inflicting injuries. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as early as 1900, realized the great regard for human life and the need to safeguard those who attempt to save the life of another. In Corbin v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. 461, 45 A. 1070 (1900), it was determined that: Because of this great regard for human life, rescuers often act in the excitement of the moment in ways in which they would not act under calmer circumstances. This is precisely what happened to Mrs. Pachesky. While I agree with the majority that there was no reversible error, I believe that the jury instruction and the special interrogatories could be shaped to give greater effect to the important policy of encouraging rescue and saving lives which underlies the Rescue Doctrine. I agree that the case to follow is the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis.2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977), found on page 782 of the majority's opinion. The Cord's procedure is to first determine whether plaintiff's actions were reasonable; only if they are unreasonable should the doctrine of comparative negligence come into play. Therefore, in submitting the special interrogatories to the jury, the initial question should be, "was the rescue unreasonable *522 or unreasonably carried out?" The jury would then be instructed to continue with the remaining interrogatories only if the answer to this first question was "yes." McEWEN, J., joins. CAVANAUGH, Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. As noted by the majority, the trial court charged the jury with respect to the rescue doctrine as follows: The court further charged with respect to contributory negligence. In addition, the court charged on negligence as to the defendant and further charged that if negligence be found, it must be a proximate cause of the incident. In so charging, I believe that the court effectively emasculated the *523 rescue doctrine as it applies to this case. The majority reduces the rescue doctrine to ordinary negligence principles. (Was either part causatively negligent and, if so, what is the percentage of negligence?) In so doing, the majority strips the rescue doctrine of two of the principles upon which it is founded: first that the imperiled person's negligence is actionable even though it be antecedent and, secondly, that the rescuer be excused from a standard of ordinary deliberative care. The majority recognizes that Pennsylvania in 1900 adopted the rescue doctrine and opined that a rescuer could only be barred from recovery by acts on his part which were "unmistakable evidence of his rashness and imprudence." Corbin v. City of Philadelphia, 195 Pa. 461, 469, 45 A. 1070, 1072 (1900). To have denied appellant the benefit of this standard in the charge to the jury was, in my opinion, error. Further, I would hold that the court erred in its charge with respect to causation and comparative negligence. Causation is not a separate consideration in determining the applicability of the rescue doctrine. In the first portion of the court's charge above, the jury was correctly told that if one negligently places himself in a position [which invites rescue] he is liable to the person who, coming to the rescue, suffers injury. Thus, the jury must, in order to apply the doctrine, find that one has invited rescue, and that the rescuer has responded to the invitation. If the jury finds that the facts call for the imposition of the doctrine it has necessarily resolved any issue as to causation on the part of the imperiled person. The only remaining question is whether the rescuer acted with rashness or imprudence. Corbin v. City of Philadelphia, supra; Altamuro v. Milner Hotel, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 870 (E.D. Pa. 1972); Simmons v. Pennsylvania Railroad CO., 2 Pa.D. &amp; C.2d 233 (1955). I would further depart from the majority by holding that there should be no application of comparative negligence since the rescuer is excused from ordinary negligence and there should be no attempt to measure the conduct of the rescuer unless it amounts to rashness or imprudence. On *524 the other hand, if the jury were to conclude that the rescuer did act with rashness or imprudence there should be no recovery. I recognize that the majority follows existing authority from other jurisdictions in its reliance on Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis.2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Korte, 357 So. 2d 228 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1978) but I conclude that the rescue doctrine, a unique theory of tort recovery, was not contemplated by and is not covered by the comparative negligence statute. (There are other instances where the comparative negligence statute does not supercede doctrines which permit recovery even in the face of a plaintiff's ordinary negligence as for example, products liability or cases involving a defendant's willful and wanton misconduct.) Rather than rely on Cords, supra, and Ryder Truck, supra, I find the reasoning in a case which refused to follow these authorities far more compelling. Furka v. Great Lakes Dredge &amp; Dock Co., 755 F.2d 1085 (4th Cir. 1985), involved a suit for the death of a seaman who drowned in an attempt to rescue a fellow employee on the Chesapeake Bay. The jury found for plaintiff in the amount of $1,200,000, but also found that the decedent was sixty-five percent contributorily negligent, thus reducing the verdict under applicable federal law to $420,000. Plaintiff appealed, alleging that the trial court committed reversible error when it charged the jury that the decedent's conduct was to be judged by ordinary standards of negligence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversing on the ground that the charge to the jury, though not objected to by plaintiff, constituted plain and fundamental error, explained: 755 F.2d 1088-1089. The Court of Appeals found no intention on the part of Congress to alter the salutary common law rescue doctrine, as exemplified by Corbin v. City of Philadelphia, supra, when Congress provided for the application of comparative negligence in the Federal Employers Liability Act (45 U.S.C. § 53), which was incorporated in the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 688). Neither can I find such an abrogative intention on the part of the Pennsylvania legislature when it passed the Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102. I would add that, if in fact, ordinary principles of legal causation apply, I would agree with the majority that the court's charge that "Proximate means immediate, nearest, next in causal connection" was in error. I would, however, also find the error to be harmful so as to merit reversal. In the context of this case, an application of this definition leads inevitably to the conclusion that the negligence of *527 appellant was the cause of the incident, since her negligence was clearly the most immediate, nearest, next in order and closest in causal connection as compared with the appellee's negligence which was at the time passive in nature. That the jury struggled with the causation issue is demonstrated by the fact that they asked for further instructions as to the meaning of "substantial" and asked for a dictionary. I would grant a new trial. [1] It is evident from our research that the definition of "proximate" employed by the court below was found in Black's Law Dictionary 1103 (5th ed. 1979), which similarly defines the word as meaning, "Immediate; nearest; direct, next in order. In its legal sense, closest in causal connection." [2] As is nonetheless clearly exemplified by this case, the word "proximate", in both its definitional and connotative senses, may, at the very least, muddle a formulation for actionable causation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in charging a jury with respect to causation in negligence cases, trial courts should refrain from utilizing the word "proximate". It is wholly unnecessary to an accurate statement of the pertinent doctrine. Our position accords with that adopted by the Civil Instructions Subcommittee, which noted with regard to its proposed instruction for "Legal Cause", Pa. SSJI (Civ) 3.25: [M]ost of the usual legal phrases have been jettisoned from the charge on legal cause. The term `legal cause' is retained to inform the jury that the plaintiff must also prove causation, and that not all causes are the `legal cause.' But `proximate cause,' a term that attempts to give substance to the distinction between factual cause and legal cause, but which `means nothing to an ordinary jury,' Rodgers v. Yellow Cab Co., 395 Pa. 412, 422, 147 A.2d 611 (1959), has been deleted. [3] More than thirty years later, our supreme court's own Justice Michael A. Musmanno, in setting forth Justice Cardozo's above pronouncement, referred to him appropriately as "juristically immortal." Cooper v. Reading R. Co., 370 Pa. 192, 201, 87 A.2d 916, 918 (1952) (Musmanno J., dissenting). [4] See McCay v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 447 Pa. 490, 291 A.2d 759 (1972). [5] See generally, J. Palmer &amp; S. Flanagan, Comparative Negligence Manual (rev. ed. 1971); V. Schwartz, Comparative Negligence (2d ed. 1986); Symposium, Comparative Negligence in Pennsylvania, 24 Vill.L. Rev. 419 (1979); Note, Comparative Negligence, 81 Colum.L.Rev. 1668 (1981). [6] See Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 320 Pa.Super. 124, 134 n. 3, 466 A.2d 1349, 1354 n. 3 (1983), rev'd, 507 Pa. 592, 493 A.2d 669 (1985). [7] Florida is a "pure comparative negligence" jurisdiction. See Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973). [8] Inexplicably, Judge Cavanaugh, in his dissent, characterizes the rule announced today as "stripping" the rescue doctrine of the underlying principle that an imperiled person's negligence should be actionable in rescue cases. Such a characterization fundamentally misapprehends the purpose and effect of our analysis herein. We have carefully left unaltered the fictive, yet necessary, link of causation which the rescue doctrine provides between an imperiled person's negligence and a rescuing plaintiff's volitional act. To do otherwise would quite clearly eradicate rescuers' favored status in the eyes of the law. Indeed, by proposing to adhere to the traditional element of the doctrine which defines a rescuer's contributory negligence only in terms of rashness or wantonness, the dissent itself disregards the doctrine's underpinnings and the recent evolution of our notions with respect to contributory negligence. By legislative enactment, contributory negligence is now a creature with a comparative sensibility. In so far as the rescue doctrine developed to soften the strict tenets of the contributory negligence rule in rescue cases, the doctrine must now similarly evolve. Comparative negligence applies "[i]n all actions" of this sort, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102, and its operation benefits injured rescuers in the same way as the rescue doctrine has in the past by lifting the absolute bar of one's contributory negligence. Furthermore, we note that the strict adherence proposed by the dissent would unfortunately result in denying any recovery to an injured rescuer who acts wantonly yet whose negligence, in, overall causative terms, is nevertheless less than, or equal to, the correlative negligence of the defendant. [9] In his dissent, Judge Cavanaugh views as inconsonant the lower court's instruction as to legal causation and its rescue doctrine instruction. These instructions were clearly offered with respect to alternative theories of liability which have been argued before us and addressed herein as such. We see no inconsonance.