Court Opinion

ID: 9697809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:31:32.274389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:35.576076
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority sets forth a reasonable and clear standard of proof for plaintiffs seeking to establish a municipality’s duty of care related to the installation of a traffic control device. Nevertheless, while I recognize that the standard of proof set forth by the' majority is largely drawn from concepts embodied in existing case law 1, I do not believe that Starr can fairly be charged with failing to recognize and meet such a standard without the benefit of the clarification provided by the majority in the instant case. Therefore, I would be inclined to remand the matter for a new trial, giving Starr an opportunity to meet the standard of proof set forth by the majority. However, because the only relief requested by the Township, which lost at trial, is judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the, grant of a new trial is not an appropriate form of relief. Therefore, I would not prejudice Starr by applying the majority’s clarified standard of proof on appellate review in the instant case. Accordingly, I dissent.

. See generally, McCalla v. Mura, 538 Pa. 527, 649 A.2d 646 (1994); Bendas v. Township of White Deer, 531 Pa. 180, 611 A.2d 1184 (1992); Mitchell v. Borough of Rochester, 395 Pa. 373, 150 A.2d 338 (1959).