Court Opinion

ID: 9630450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:11:22.996615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:38.600037
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Price, J.:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion which reinstates the jury’s verdict against both defendants. There was no evidence introduced at trial sufficient to establish that these defendants proximately caused the death of decedent.
Trial testimony revealed admissions by both defendants that they struck an object on the road. Mrs. Mc-Cleary felt she had run over a carton, and Mr. Senft felt he had struck a deer. While these admissions may be evidence of negligence on the part of both defendants, there was no further evidence introduced to establish that this negligence was the proximate cause of decedent’s demise.
Testimony of the officers who investigated the accident revealed that human matter was attached to the vehicles of both defendants. However, no scientific reports were introduced which connected that matter with the decedent. And even were the circumstantial evidence in this case sufficient to permit the inference that the matter found on the car was part of the decedent’s *514clothing and body, there was no evidence that the injuries sustained by decedent as a result of being struck by these cars were the legal cause of his death.
Medical testimony established only that the decedent had been struck by two or more cars, and that one or more of these cars caused the death. Furthermore, the medical testimony revealed that decedent could have died before being struck by either of the defendants’ cars. The physician who examined the deceased’s body felt that death had occurred within several hours of 11:40 P.M. The doctor refused to state whether either or both of these cars had caused decedent’s death, stating only that the injuries to the body were inflicted by more than one vehicle. (NT 50a-56a) He would not even state which injuries were likely to have caused the death, nor which occurred first. The doctor also refused to testify with any degree of medical certainty that the decedent was alive before he was struck by Mrs. McCleary, nor before he was struck by Mr. Senft. (NT 57a) In fact, the expert testified that it was possible that a third car could have struck the decedent before Mrs. McCleary and that that car could have caused the death. (NT 57a-58a) Furthermore, he stated that he had no way to determine which, if any, injuries were caused by reason of either impact (NT 58a) and that there was nothing he found on the body which indicated that decedent’s injuries were caused by these two cars. He stated at NT 59a, “It was probably two cars. It could have been any two.” [Emphasis added.]
Had there been conflicting medical testimony, any of which tended to establish that the injuries decedent received when struck by the defendants’ cars caused his death, I would agree that whether the death resulted from these accidents would be a jury question. Goodall v. Hess, 315 Pa. 289, 172 A. 693 (1934). However, on such a record as ours, I am unable to conclude that the defendants caused decedent’s death. For that reason, *515I would uphold the lower court’s judgment n.o.v. in favor of the defendant Senft.1
Cercone, J., joins in this opinion.

 No motions were filed on behalf of Mrs. McCleary. Therefore, I do not consider her status in light of this opinion.