Court Opinion

ID: 9643363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:27:13.308845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.010341
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Plaintiff must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence (1) the cause of the accident and injury and (2) that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant and (3) that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Furthermore, a jury is not permitted to conjecture or guess, and if, from the testimony of plaintiff and his (and/or defendant’s) witnesses such negligence is not clearly established, he cannot recover. Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc., 405 Pa. 463, 469, 175 A. 2d 864, and cases cited therein.
The majority opinion says plaintiff testified that: “. . . a nail protruding from the second tread caught his heel causing him to fall.” This is misleading since it is only partially correct. Plaintiff’s exact testimony was:
Direct Examination
“Q. And what happened to you as you stepped down on the next step with your right foot? A. Well, something caught this leg (indicating left) this foot here. Q. What caught it? A. It must have been a nail or something, whatever they call it, that silvered stuff on the step there* Q. Now, had you seen that before *302you took your first step? A. No, I hadn’t seen it. Q. Could you see it? A. No, I hadn’t seen it. Q. Did you look to see? A. Well, I was looking, but I could probably see it shine, but I couldn’t see there was nothing up there to trip me.”
Cross-Examination
“A. . . . Something caught my heel. . . . Q. And with your right foot, which step were you stepping on? A. The next one. Q. Which would be the second step? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then what happened? A. The nail caught me on my heel.”
Plaintiff’s witness, Hazel Hunter, who accompanied him down the stairs, saw plaintiff fall and thus testified : “Q. Now, when he fell down did you look at the step to see what caused him to fall down? A. Well, I looked at it, yes. . . . Q. What was it that caused him to trip? A. Well, either the rubber mat or a nail, or this aluminum edge on it.”
Furthermore, plaintiff kept contradicting himself as to which step he fell on.
Moreover, plaintiff’s failure to prove that a protruding nail was the cause of his fall is further emphasized by the difference between the allegata and probata.
Plaintiff in his complaint alleged that defendant’s negligence consisted of “(a) In permitting the said stairway, and more particularly the metal strip on the edge of the top step of the third floor to become loose, detached and broken; . . .”
In Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc., 405 Pa., supra, the Court said (page 469) : “In Mrahunec v. Fausti, 385 Pa. 64, 69, 121 A. 2d 878, the Court said: ‘Plaintiff’s case fails for the additional reason that he falls within the well established principle, viz., where plain*303tiff has the burden of proving certain facts he cannot recover if his evidence is so uncertain or inadequate or equivocal or ambiguous or contradictory as to make findings or legitimate inferences therefrom a mere conjecture: Wagner v. Somerset, 372 Pa. 338, 341, 93 A. 2d 440; Musleva v. Patton Clay Mfg. Co., 338 Pa. 249, 12 A. 2d 554.’ See to the same effect: Moyerman v. Glanzberg, 391 Pa. 387, 395, 138 A. 2d 681; DiGiannantonio v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 402 Pa. [27, 166 A. 2d 28], supra.”
Plaintiff had the burden of proving what caused his accident and injury and his proof thereof was so un- . certain and equivocal as to make any findings or conclusion therefrom a mere conjecture.
For these reasons I dissent and would enter judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.

 Italics throughout, ours.