Court Opinion

ID: 9640247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:48.259619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.624623
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
The court below granted a new trial on the ground that the trial judge had erred in failing to charge the jury that, if the crane operator was guilty of wanton *165misconduct, the plaintiff, regardless of any contributory negligence on his part, could recover. For the reason assigned, I agree with the action taken by the court below.
However, I must disassociate myself from the statements and implications in the majority opinion as to the effect of contributory negligence on the right of the plaintiff to recover, if the defendant was negligent rather than guilty of wanton misconduct, and as to the infirmity of the instructions of the trial judge on the subject of contributory negligence.
The standard of conduct to which the instant plaintiff was required to conform was well stated in Gregorius v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Co., 409 Pa. 578, 584, 187 A. 2d 646. It is my opinion that, if the instant plaintiff’s conduct fell short of such standard and if plaintiff’s conduct was a “juridical cause of the injury, and not simply a condition of its occurrence” (McFadden v. Pennzoil Company, 341 Pa. 433, 436, 19 A. 2d 370; Geelen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 400 Pa. 240, 248, 161 A. 2d 595), then, absent wanton misconduct on the defendant’s part, the plaintiff cannot recover. Under our case law the burden of proving such contributory negligence is upon the defendant. That does not mean, however, that if plaintiff, in his own case, produces evidence which reveals that he was guilty of contributory negligence, he can recover. The language of the majority opinion appears to approve the doctrine that, even though plaintiff’s own case reveals contributory negligence, nevertheless plaintiff may still recover, a doctrine to which I do not subscribe.
Moreover, my examination of the instructions given by the trial judge indicates that such instructions adequately and properly covered the subject of contributory negligence, except on the impact of contributory negligence if the defendant was guilty of wanton misconduct.
*166I would affirm the grant of a new trial solely on the ground assigned by the court below.
Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this opinion.