Court Opinion

ID: 9695576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:23:33.583705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:14.422670
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
I disagree with the majority’s reasoning and interpretation of §1211 of The Vehicle Code. Prior to the adoption of §1211 pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, or payment of fine were admissible in subsequent civil actions as admissions against interest. Section 1211 changed the law so as to proscribe their admissibility in subsequent civil actions, thus placing those pleas and admissions under the general rule that evidence of a conviction of a criminal offense may not be used in a civil suit.
That was the law before Hurtt v. Stirone, 416 Pa. 493, 206 A. 2d 624 (1965). The attempt to establish exceptions to the Hurtt v. Stirone determination for “relatively minor matters such as traffic violations, lesser misdemeanors, and matters of like import” is so indefinite that it will generate considerable litigation.-
I would adhere to the general rule of evidence that would prevent the admission- of a conviction of a criminal offense in subsequent civil actions; but if I were to depart from that rule, I would require more certain *287standards than those which have been expressed in Hurtt v. Stirone.
I concur in the result.