Court Opinion

ID: 9728068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:57:06.197324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:45.530786
License: Public Domain

*81Dissenting Opinion by
Judge MacPhail:
I respectfully dissent.
While the majority states that we need not decide which, if any, of the documents sought by the Shoyers are associated with the “in-depth accident investigations” áuthorized and, in my opinion, protected by Section 3754, I believe that such a preliminary determination must be made and was erroneously made by the trial court. A review of the record before us discloses that the trial court did not file a separate opinion for the case sub judice; rather, it cited its opinion in a companion, case identified as Tronoski v. Pennsylvania . Department of Transportation, 8000-356, (Common Pleas Court, Philadelphia County, Opinion issued March 15, 1983). In the Tronoski case, the documents, sought by the Plaintiffs were “all tangible records of accidents occurring between straight line diagram station 0 plus 00 ... to S.L.D. Station 50 plus 00 ... occurring in 1978 and 1979.” It must be noted that the information sought in Tronoski relates to accidents occurring at a very specific location over a very specific period of time. This is not true in the Shoyers’ case, particularly with respect to item 5.
I would vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the purpose of having that court specifically determine whether any of the items sought by the Shoyers fell, within the documents I believe to be protected from discovery by Section. 3754.
The majority emphasizes that the Shoyers are not attempting to obtain evidence from persons involved with in-depth accident reports, rather that the Shoyers are only seeking the reports themselves. I do not quarrel with that statement but I believe the reports are just as clearly protected as are the persons who provided the information contained therein.
*82We are instructed by the legislature that in inteipreting their enactments, we are to ascertain and effectuate their intention. Sections 1921 and 1922 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (Act), 1 Pa. C. S. §§1921, 1922. The purpose of Section 3754 is clearly set forth in subsection (a) as “determining the causes of traffic accidents and factors which may help prevent similar types of accidents.” I believe the legislature then contemplated that in order to assure that opinions, observations and measurements would be freely given without fear of involvement in legal or other proceedings, it further provided for the confidentiality of those reports. I believe that the words “or other proceeding” have significance and that they were intended to apply to discovery proceedings such as those presently before us..
Section 1922(5) of the Act also instructs us that in ascertaining the legislatures intent, we are to be guided by the principle that the legislature intends to favor the public interest over any private interest. The public interest clearly set forth in Section 3754(a) is the prevention of accidents. The private interest which is the subject of Shoyers’ lawsuit is the pursuit of a tort claim.
While sunlight may be the best disinfectant, I foil to see what the disease is in the instant case which will be cured by requiring DOT to furnish reports which were prepared pursuant the specific statutory authority in the belief that their content would be protected from litigants’ scrutiny.
Finally, I fail to see where the statutory provisions for suit against the Commonwealth in certain limited matters has any relevance whatever to the issue now before us. Section 3754(b) does not prevent all persons from testifying because their statements may be included in an in-depth accident report, but it does preclude the testimony of such persons if it was solely obtained *83for and is contained in such reports. In my opinion DOT is performing its statutory duty in refusing to produce for discovery in a tort action their work product in preparing in-depth accident reports.
Judges Rogers and Doyle join.