Court Opinion

ID: 9636646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:36:28.769374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:47.646443
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Allen M. Steaene:
This Court has repeatedly decided when contributory negligence may be declared judicially. It is only where such negligence is so clearly revealed that fair and reasonable individuals could not disagree as to its existence: Altomari v. Kruger et al., 325 Pa. 235, 188 A. 828; Van Note v. Philadelphia Transportation Company, 353 Pa. 277, 45 A. 2d 71; Mogren et ux., v. Gadonas et al., 358 Pa. 507, 58 A. 2d 150; Callahan v. Wishart & Sons, Co., 365 Pa. 498, 76 A. 2d 386. In my view the existence or absence of contributory negligence was for the jury. The obvious paradox of the majority opinion becomes apparent where, applying the above rule, the record discloses that the trial judge with two other judges in the court below (composing *638the court in banc) and three justices of this Court do not agree that the evidence establishes contributory-negligence on the part of defendant.
I would affirm the judgments entered on the verdicts.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Ladner join in this dissent.