Court Opinion

ID: 9638499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:45:04.094236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:06.910822
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I dissent from the majority’s opinion which has misconstrued the relevant factual context of this case and has misread the Kline opinion as controlling it.
*515I think that the facts must he briefly reemphasized. Since we have this case on appellant’s claim that it was entitled to a judgment n.o.v., we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee. E.g., Glass v. Freeman, 430 Pa. 21, 240 A. 2d 825 (1967). With this in mind, I find evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that appellant leased a truck to appellee’s employer which was negligently equipped with an improper gas tank cap, i.e., a rag, a defective gas guage, i.e., one that showed the tank one-fourth full when it contained no gas, and an inadequate emergency warning system, i.e., none. As a result of this, the truck, through no fault of appellee, ran out of gas, which not surprisingly caused it to stop moving in the middle of the road. To compensate for the absence of a warning system, appellee was forced to direct traffic from the middle of the road, and while there Eutkowski struck him.
The majority, citing Kline, finds it significant that Eutkowski testified that he was able to see the truck. That I find to be irrelevant. In Kline, the issue was whether the fact that the truck was poorly lighted caused “a negligent failure of the driver to see the obstruction before being committed to a situation which made the accident inevitable. . . .” Since the driver testified that he could see the truck, despite its inadequate lighting, it was clear that the absence of the lights did not cause the accident.
Here however the inadequate lights play an entirely different role in appellee’s case. Appellee claims that because there was no warning system on the truck, he was forced to stand in the road and direct traffic. It is clear that appellee, as the operator of a disabled vehicle, had the duty of doing what “a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances to warn approaching traffic, at night, by lights or otherwise, *516of the obstruction of the highway.” Gaber v. Weinberg, 324 Pa. 385, 391, 188 Atl. 187 (1936) (emphasis added); see St. John v. Kepler, 360 Pa. 528, 61 A. 2d 875 (1948); Simrell v. Eschenbach, 303 Pa. 156, 154 Atl. 369 (1931). Here, deprived of the proper lights, appellee was remitted to the “or otherwise,” and had no choice but to go into the road.
On these facts, I do not understand how the majority can conclude that a jury could not reasonably find proximate cause. Appellant was negligent in not equipping the truck with the proper warning system. Having failed to do this, it is entirely foreseeable that appellee, to protect both his, or more accurately appellant’s, truck and other drivers, would be forced to stand in the road to alert traffic. What else could he do other than ignoring his duty to warn others?
The majority reasons that because Eutkowski was “apprised of the danger, the accident was not inevitable,” so that Rutkowski’s negligence was a superseding cause. But the majority discusses the wrong danger. Appellee was here put in danger by the absence of lights which thus required that he stand in the highway to warn not only Eutkowski, but also every other motorist, that the truck was disabled. It matters not that Eutkowski was able to see the truck; the absence of an adequate emergency warning system still required appellee to be in the road to help protect others who might not have appreciated the situation. Appellant’s negligent failure to provide a proper warning system put appellee at the risk of a particular harm—having to stand in the middle of a busy road and direct traffic, in a position where he could be struck by a careless motorist. “Where the negligent conduct of the actor creates or increases the risk of a particular harm and is a substantial factor in causing that harm, the fact that the harm is brought about *517through the intervention of another force does not relieve the actor of liability, except where the harm is intentionally caused by a third person and is not within the scope of the risk created by the actor’s conduct.” Restatement (2d), Torts §442B (1965).
It is hard to imagine a case more squarely encompassed by the above Restatement provision than this one. The jury found for appellee on evidence which made it thoroughly proper for it to do so. I believe that verdict should stand.
Mr. Justice Eagen joins in this dissent.