Court Opinion

ID: 9703354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:52:59.011155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:47.818904
License: Public Domain

*411Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
There is insufficient evidence in this record to support a verdict for the plaintiffs. I consider Stewart v. Morow, 403 Pa. 459, 170 A. 2d 338 (1961), as controlling the present case. Therein an object, a small mirror, regularly in place on a mantelpiece, fell for no disclosed reason. In Doerflinger v. Davis, 412 Pa. 401, 194 A. 2d 897 (1963), cited in the majority opinion, a crate containing a bicycle fell over from a position it occupied near the aisle of . a store. Therein the Supreme Court emphasized testimony to the effect that, “It shouldn’t have, been there in the first place.” The present case is therefore distinguishable from the Doerflinger case in the particular that the shelf in this case was where it should have been, whereas the crated bicycle in that case was not. Therefore, as in the case of the mirror, the mere fact that the shelf fell for no disclosed reason would not establish negligence.
I would reverse and grant judgment in favor of the defendant.
Therefore, I dissent.