Court Opinion

ID: 9749976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:09:19.904191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:00.871938
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
The majority determines that even if the additional defendant were negligent per se, in maintaining the hedge, it was proper for the trial court to grant judgment on the pleadings for him, because “[t]he carelessness of the automobile driver” was a superseding cause. “Superseding cause” is the name given to a concept which, where applicable, relieves an actor of liability for his negligence because the law views his negligence as too remotely connected to the injury. The concept is applicable only in the following situation: “Where a second actor has become aware of the existence of a potential danger created by the negligence of an original tortfeaser, and thereafter, by an independent act of negligence, brings about an accident. . . .” Kline v. Moyer and Albert, 325 Pa. 357, 364, 191 Atl. 43, 46 (1937). See Rodgers v. Yellow Cab Co., 395 Pa. 412, 147 A. 2d 611 (1959).
*565It is obvious from tbe rule that tbe second actor’s conduct is a superseding cause only when said actor’s conduct is negligent. Thus, it is improper to allow the original actor (here, the additional defendant) to be relieved of his liability before it has been determined that the second actor (here, the original defendant) is, in fact, negligent. If it should turn out that plaintiff cannot establish the negligence of the original defendant then the only legally responsible cause is the conduct of the additional defendant, who would not be insulated by any superseding cause. Accordingly, I cannot see how the original actor (additional defendant) can be let out at the pleading stage of the case. Indeed, if the original actor’s negligence can be shown I cannot see how he can be relieved of liability or let out of the case until the second actor’s conduct actually has been found, after trial,1 to be negligent.
I would overrule judgment on the pleadings for the additional defendant.
I dissent.

 In this respect, the trial court erred in Kite v. Jones, 389 Pa. 339, 132 A. 2d 683 (1957), when it permitted nonsuit of the original actor before the jury determined the negligence of the second actor.