Court Opinion

ID: 9750049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:15:11.254276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:01.992541
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, President Judge,
concurring:
Sun alleges that the trial court erred when it submitted to the jury the issue of whether it was negligent for failing to become a member of PA One-Call. While I agree with the majority’s disposition of this issue, I can only concur in the result because of the majority’s reliance on section 321 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
In Glick v. Martin and Mohler, Inc., 369 Pa.Super. 428, 535 A.2d 626 (1987), this court stated:
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has never adopted section 321 as the law of Pennsylvania, and as the intermediate appellate court, we decline to do so. Section 321 fails to include any concept of to whom the duty is owed, which is a necessary element of a cause of action sounding in tort---- Secondly, the description of the prohibit*491ed conduct (that which poses “unreasonable risk”) is too vague to permit principled application of the conduct.
Id., 369 Pa. Superior Ct. at 435, 535 A.2d at 629 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). While the majority distinguishes the facts of the present case from Glick, the concerns voiced by this court in Glick were not limited to its facts. The problems inherent in creating a cause of action based on section 321 are intrinsic to that section and are not vitiated simply by a change in facts. Tort law should shape society’s actions by “distinguishing] between acceptable and prohibited behavior and ... [by] penalizing] the latter.” Glick, 369 Pa.Super. 438, 535 A.2d at 631. While Sun’s actions in the present case may appear to fit squarely within the parameters of a section 321 cause of action, the majority’s recognition of such a theory of tort liability does not provide guidelines to influence future behavior.