Court Opinion

ID: 9640246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:48.256072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.624028
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I concur in the grant of a new trial because it was fundamental error to fail to charge the jury that defendant has the burden of proving that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence: Stegmuller v. Davis, 408 Pa. 267, 182 A. 2d 745. Cf. Pleasant v. Carr, 387 *164Pa. 634, 130 A. 2d 189. However, I must add this warning — if plaintiff’s evidence shows that he was guilty of contributory negligence he cannot recover: Bohner v. Eastern Express, Inc., 405 Pa. 463, 468, 175 A. 2d 864.
While the Court’s erroneous charge on contributory negligence was not the basis for its Order granting a new trial, “. . . a correct decision will be sustained if it can be sustained for any reason whatsoever; in other words, we will not reverse in such a case even though the reason given by the Court below to sustain its decision was erroneous: [Citing cases]”: Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 115, 117 A. 2d 899.
There was no evidence of wanton negligence, as the trial Judge mistakenly believed. In Geelen v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 400 Pa. 240, 161 A. 2d 595, the Court correctly stated the law (page 248) : “. . . wanton misconduct is substantially different from simple negligence and even gross negligence, not only in degree but in kind. In order to exist it must be found that the engineer, in this case, had actual knowledge* of the decedent’s peril for a sufficient length of time before the accident to give him a reasonable opportunity to stop the train and avoid the accident and, despite this actual prior knowledge, the engineer manifested a reckless disregard of decedent’s danger . . . .”
Since there was no evidence of wanton negligence, it would have been improper to charge on that point: Hronis v. Wissinger, 412 Pa. 434, 437, 194 A. 2d 885.

 Italics, ours.