Court Opinion

ID: 9698440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:50:43.111686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:41.026055
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result as to remand for the purpose of reconsideration of delay damages in light of new Rule 238, and I also concur in the analysis by. the majority of the interplay of the emergency doctrine and the assured clear distance rule. However, I respectfully dissent to the conclusion by the majority that the trial court’s charge on the emergency doctrine was ignored by the jury and therefore was harmless.
We are unable to say to what extent the jury considered the effect of that charge on their decision to apportion damages 40 per cent against Matt Slap Chevrolet and 60 per cent against Chester Kukowski. Pursuant to the analysis of the interrelationship between the emergency doctrine and the assured clear distance rule, which I believe is sound and correct, a jury charge in keeping with that analysis and which made certain that the emergency doctrine did not apply, could well have turned the jury away from a finding of negligence against Matt Slap or reduced its apportionment against it considerably.
I believe the only manner in which justice can be rendered in this case is to grant a new trial with directions that the sudden emergency charge not be given.
Should the result of a new trial once against be in favor of the appellee, then the remand instructions as to the appeal of Rule 238 damages would apply.