Drew v. Work
95 A.3d 324
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Appellant Christopher Drew and Stutts were involved in a September 19, 2008 motor vehicle collision on State Route 255 in Fox Township, PA.
- Stutts was traveling south in the right lane; Appellant followed and attempted to pass, causing dispute about who moved first.
- Independent eyewitness Fulton testified that Stutts veered or moved left after Appellant attempted a pass, but exact sequence varied.
- Trial court denied jury instructions on the sudden emergency doctrine and negligence per se; the jury found Stutts 40% and Appellant 60% negligent.
- Post-trial motions were filed; judgment entered May 3, 2013 in Work’s favor as administrator of Stutts’ estate; case later remanded.
- Appellant pursued appeal; issues focused on sudden emergency instruction, negligence per se charges, and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sudden emergency instruction was warranted | Drew relied on testimony supporting sudden emergency. | Stutts contends moving in same direction precluded sudden emergency. | Appellant entitled to instruction; judgment vacated and new trial. |
| Whether per se negligence instruction under § 3309(1) was warranted | Stutts violated lane-change requirements; per se negligence should be charged. | Evidence did not support per se neg for § 3309; § 3714 not applicable. | Per se instruction for § 3309(1) warranted; § 3714 not warranted. |
| Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence | Weight-distribution verdict inconsistent with evidence supporting sudden emergency. | Jury verdict should stand absent clear error. | Not addressed; remanded for new trial due to other errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockhart v. List, 542 Pa. 141 (Pa. 1995) (cautions against rigid static/moving-object distinction in sudden emergency)
- Levey v. DeNardo, 725 A.2d 735 (Pa. 1999) (rejects rigid static/moving object rule; permits unity of consideration)
- McKee v. Evans, 551 A.2d 260 (Pa. Super. 1988) (four-part test for sudden emergency applicability)
- Papandrea v. Hartman, 507 A.2d 822 (Pa. Super. 1986) (brakes brake-failure context; basis for dual doctrine charges when evidence supports)
- Elder v. Orluck, 483 A.2d 474 (Pa. Super. 1984) (limits on sudden emergency doctrine where taillights and rear-end issues arise)
- Cannon v. Tabor, 642 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 1994) (discusses applicability of sudden emergency when two vehicles in same direction)
- Kukowski v. Kukowski, 560 A.2d 222 (Pa. Super. 1989) (harmless error when jury nonetheless apportions fault to driver)