Wright v. Eastman
63 A.3d 281
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Appellant Catherine Wright, on behalf of the decedent's estate, appeals a December 1, 2011 trial court grant of summary judgment to Appellees Paul and Marion Eastman.
- Decedent was struck by Appellee Eastman’s vehicle on Pittsburgh-McKeesport Boulevard around midnight; decedent died from injuries.
- Decedent had a post-mortem BAC of 0.42%, allegedly affecting perception; no evidence showed Eastman saw decedent until within 1.5–2 car lengths.
- Appellant offered two expert reports (lighting/visibility and braking) to show decedent was visible earlier and Eastman could have stopped; the trial court found lack of factual basis and conjecture.
- The appellate court held there were genuine issues of material fact as to duty, breach, and causation, and erred in granting summary judgment, remanding for trial with de novo review of expert testimony under Summers v. Certainteed Corp.
- The standard of review requires viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and deferring to the jury on witness credibility and expert conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on negligence. | Wright argues there are genuine issues of material fact about breach. | Eastman contends no factual basis supports breach or foreseeability. | No; the court erred, factual disputes remain for the jury. |
| Whether Appellant’s experts created a fact question despite lack of direct evidence. | Kosmatka and O’Connor rely on decedent’s presence in roadway and detection distance. | Experts depend on conjecture with insufficient factual foundation. | Yes; substantial questions exist as to duty, breach, and proximate cause. |
| Whether circumstantial evidence and expert testimony can create a jury issue at summary judgment. | Circumstantial and expert evidence may raise a jury question. | Need for precise factual bases undermines expert conclusions at summary judgment. | Yes; credibility and weight are for the jury, not the grant of summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. U.S. Rubber Co., 414 Pa. 626 (Pa. 1964) (circumstantial evidence permissible to prove negligence)
- Carl v. Kurtz, 255 Pa. Super. 198 (Pa. Super. 1978) (jury may disbelieve uncontradicted lay testimony; speed inferred from circumstances)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 606 Pa. 294 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment for expert conclusions requires deference to trier of fact; credibility reserved for jury)
- Mazzagatti v. Everingham by Everingham, 512 Pa. 266 (Pa. 1986) (duty of care to pedestrians in danger zone)
- Lavely v. Wolota, 253 Pa. Super. 196 (Pa. Super. 1978) (pedestrian right to rely on drivers’ reasonable care; question for jury)
- Nanty-Glo v. Amer. Surety Co., 309 Pa. 236 (Pa. 1932) (jury may disbelieve witnesses; credibility is jury prerogative)
- Bremmer v. Protected Home Mut. Life Ins. Co., 436 Pa. 494 (Pa. 1970) (applied rule on summary judgment timing in Pennsylvania)