Court Opinion

ID: 9764372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:19:38.975572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:56.070030
License: Public Domain

*303POMEROY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the learned trial court erred in granting Ridley Township’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, and thus also agree that the judgment must be vacated. The basis of my opinion is largely the reasoning set forth in our opinion in Flickinger Estate v. Ritsky, 452 Pa. 69, 305 A.2d 40 (1973). That opinion, in turn, was an explication of Section 447 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, long since adopted as the rule of law in Pennsylvania relative to proximate causation in situations where intervening acts of a third person are negligent. See also Nelson v. Duquesne Light Co., 338 Pa. 37, at 42, 53-54, 12 A.2d 299, at 302, 307 (1940).
O’BRIEN and NIX, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.