Court Opinion

ID: 9701482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:20:54.316921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:24.065871
License: Public Domain

*106Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice O’Brien:
The majority holds that summary judgment is improper because a disputed issue of fact exists as to who was driving the automobile. In accepting appellant’s argument on this issue, the Court sub silentio overrules the cases, which are legion, holding that an issue not duly pursued below cannot be argued on appeal. See, e.g, Roberts v. Fireman’s Ins. Co. of N.J., 376 Pa. 99, 104, 101 A. 2d 747 (1954); Bourd v. Berman, 359 Pa. 183, 185, 58 A. 2d 442 (1948).
It is true that the issue of who was the driver was raised in the pleadings. However, in its thorough brief filed below, appellant, despite several pages of alleged disputed issues of fact, did not contend that the driver’s identity was one of those disputed issues. It is not our function to speculate upon the reasons for appellant’s actions. Perhaps the evidence available made it apparent that Milmoe was the driver, and appellant considered it futile to raise the issue. Whatever the reason, it is unconscionable to allow the insurer to sit back and apparently abandon the issue below, and then, after the grant of the motion for summary judgment, raise the issue on appeal. The judicial process takes long enough in this day and age without our countenancing dilatory tactics such as these.
Mr. Justice Robeets joins in this dissenting opinion.