Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Dailey v. Smith, 2024 WL 4456426, — A.3d — (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 10, 2024), analyzed whether the trial court erred in not submitting the issue of comparative negligence to the jury when evidence existed that a jury could reasonably determine that the plaintiff may have been negligent. The consolidated claim arose from a two-car motor vehicle accident where Smith, the operator of a vehicle, was injured and sued the driver of the other vehicle seeking damages. Smith testified that the driver of the other vehicle, Daisy Vai, made a left turn in front of him, and he slammed on his brakes but was unable to stop and collided with Vai’s car while driving 30 to 35 mph in a 25 mph speed limit. Vai testified that she believed that, when she started turning left, she could make the turn safely and she did not see Smith’s car until she began her turn. After both moving for directed verdicts that the opposing party was negligent, the trial court granted Smith’s motion and did not present the question of comparative negligence to the jury. Vai appealed and argued that the trial court erred in not submitting the issue of Smith’s comparative negligence to the jury.
On appeal, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred in not presenting the question of Smith’s comparative negligence to the jury and, thus, a new trial addressing liability and damages was necessary. First, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to present the question of Smith’s comparative negligence to the jury. The Court highlighted that the standard to present a comparative negligence question to the jury was that there must be evidence from which the jury could find both that the plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence caused the injuries for which he seeks damages. Consequently, if there is sufficient evidence of both elements, then the comparative negligence question must be submitted to the jury no matter how strong or persuasive the countervailing evidence is, and failure to do so is reversible error. Here, the Court, when looking at the evidence in light most favorable to Vai, found that the jury could have reasonably found Smith negligent on one of the causes of the accident because he admitted to speeding and the speed of a vehicle affects the force of a collision and the timing of if the collision could have been avoided.
Second, the Court discussed that the mistake by the trial court of not presenting the comparative negligence question to the jury is critical enough to warrant a new trial on both issues of liability and damages. The Court noted that comparative negligence is a defense to liability, both as a reduction of liability and a complete defense. This is an essential defense because in Pennsylvania there is a modified comparative negligence system. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102(a). In Pennsylvania, if a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident then the plaintiff can’t recover any damages. Id. If a plaintiff is found 50% or less at fault, then the jury’s award will be reduced by the percentage that the jury assigns the plaintiff at fault. Id. Thus, comparative negligence can reduce the liability of a defendant and reduce damages paid by the defendant or eliminate the defendant’s liability in a case all together. Because of this, the Court ruled that, because trial court denied the jury the chance to decide comparative negligence, a new trial on both liability and damages is needed because the causal effect of the plaintiff’s speeding is intertwined with the issue of damages as well as the question of if the plaintiff was liable and contributed to his own injuries.
The Dailey decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Conrad James Benedetto, Esq. and/or Alyssa Klier, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
