Court Opinion

ID: 9717044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:56:45.557732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.880050
License: Public Domain

■Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
Our Courts have repeatedly said — up to this time— that a person who sees or who should see an obviously dangerous- condition and intentionally tempts it when such action is: unnecessary, is. guilty of contributory negligence as a matter .of law: Szuwalla v. Reading Co., 330 Pa. 526, 528, 199 At 177; Boyle v. Mahanoy City, 187 Pa. 1, 11, 40 A. 1092; Chernuka v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 320 Pa. 193, 195, 182 A. 543; Dooley v. Charleroi Borough, 328. Pa. 57, 60, 195 A. 6; Joseph v. Pitts. & W. V. Ry., 294 Pa. 315, 320, 144 A. 139; Neal *473v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Ry. Co., 289 Pa. 313, 319, 137 A. 453; Forks Township v. King, 84 Pa. 230; Druding v. Philadelphia, 374 Pa. 202, 97 A. 2d 365.
Plaintiff in this case wilfully, deliberately and intentionally tested an admittedly known and obvious danger. When she saw that the entrance to the store was icy,* she did not have to get out of her car. Furthermore, she saw “perfectly” that the parking lot ivas in a terrible condition; that it was filled with rough, rutty ridges three or four inches deep and that it was especially dangerous in the distant corner where her daughter parked her car. She did not have to push a grocery cart over ridges of ice to her car; and this is especially so since she admitted that her daughter could have brought the car to her, or the parking boys at the store could have brought the ear to her at the entrance to the store.
In the light of plaintiff’s own testimony, it is impossible for me to understand how any Court can fail to find her guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It makes meaningless our rule — which has been reiterated countless times — that a person who deliberately tests a known or obvious danger when he does not have to, is hot entitled to recover.
In Forks Township v. King, 84 Pa. 230, this Court-said (page 233): “A person who-knows a defect.--.Qn-a highway- -and voluntarily undertakes to test it when it could be avoided, cannot recover against the municipal authorities for losses incurred through such defect: Whar-t. on .Neg.,.sect. 440. .Thus, if it. appears that there is. danger in treading on a..piece' of .ice and the plaintiff voluntarily and un'necessárily undertakes to *474walk over it, when he could plainly see it and easily avoid it, and falls and breaks a limb, he is precluded from recovery.”
For these reasons and under the foregoing authorities I would reverse the judgment entered on the verdict and enter here.a judgment non obstante veredicto.

 Such a condition incidentally and generally speaking does not amount to negligence.........