Court Opinion

ID: 9765685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:14:01.898295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:13.513998
License: Public Domain

Dissenting and Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Irrespective of whether plaintiff was or was not a trespasser, (1) his legal status was that of a trespasser; and (2) in this status plaintiff could recover only if defendant was guilty of wilful or wanton negligence: Frederick v. Phila. R. T. Co., 337 Pa. 136, 10 A. 2d 576.
I would enter judgment n.o.v. because plaintiff’s evidence failed to prove actual knowledge on the part of defendant’s engineer of the presence of a person on the tracks in time to stop the train, and consequently defendant’s conduct did not amount to or constitute wilful or wanton negligence: Davies v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western R. R. Co., 370 Pa. 180, 184, 87 A. 2d 183, and cases cited therein; Zawacki v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 374 Pa. 89, 91, 97 A. 2d 63; Engle v. Reider, 366 Pa. 411, 77 A. 2d 621; Geelen v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 400 Pa. 240, 161 A. 2d 595; Kasanovich v. George, 348 Pa., infra; Peden v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 324 Pa., infra.
Justice Eagen, in the recent case of Geelen v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 400 Pa., supra, accurately defined* wanton negligence (page 248) : “. . . wanton misconduct is substantially different from simple negligence and even gross negligence, not only in degree but in kind. In order to exist it must be .found that the engineer, in this case, had actual knowledge of the decedent’s peril for a sufficient length of time before the accident to give him a reasonable opportunity to stop the train and avoid the accident and, despite this ac*581lual prior knowledge, the engineer manifested a reckless disregard of decedent’s danger. . . . Kasanovich v. George, 348 Pa. 199, 34 A. 2d 523 (1943); Peden v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 324 Pa. 444, 188 Atl. 586 (1936). If [wilfnl or] wanton misconduct is found to exist, then of course, contributory negligence on the part of the decedent cannot prevent plaintiff’s recovery.”
If judgment n.o.v. is not entered, I would agree with the majority Opinion that a new trial should be granted.

 Several earlier cases had defined it too broadly.