*1 theory logical Majority If the its be carried to Legion conclusion it would mean that the American headquarters Indianapolis, would be re- Indiana, sponsible (whom typist for the dismissal of a it did contact) not know and with whom it had had no at posts Albuquerque, one of its in distant New Mexico. large organizations, It would mean that all fraternal responsible such as the Moose and would be for Elks, every localized contact еntered into distant indi- lodges. vidual goes
I believe that the decision in this far ease be- yond required pleadings is what under the and the evi- Opinion Majority’s says I am satisfied that the dence, right wrong is much that in a I fear connection, laying precedent that the Court here is down a complicate may adjudication just and retard the complaints employees and contractees within local- ized and it is clear to mе territories, that this decision up procedure disposi- sets a novel and intricate for the adequate ap- tion of the claim when an propriate already one exists. all of these
For reasons dissent. Mr. Justice dissents. Cohbn Appellant. Florig & Roebuck Sears, *2 Argued 1957. Before January 9, C. J., Bell, Jones, Jones JJ. Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold, Cohen, Strawbridge, Morris with him Wolf, Maxwell Ber- nard M. Schorr & Wolf, Borish, Block, Solis-Cohen, appellant. for Barry
Wm. J. N. with him Moran, Jr., Moran, Jr., appel- Billegas Wm. J. & for Moran, III, Moran, lee. 1957: March Opinion by Me. Justice Bell, brought personal trespass
Plaintiff an action for injuries resulting separated widely from two accidents. injuries The serious which he suffered on June 14,1952, alleged, resulted from on an accident March 17, 1951. on March entered one of the Plaintiff, 17, 1951, purchase defendant’s warehouses order to some sid- *3 ing. pass supervisor Plaintiff tried to around the inаdequacy defendant’s the because of warehouse, and, stepped light, into in a hole the floor of the ware- thereby injuring house and his hand and fell, wrist. left Although pain, he claims that he suffered constant he any lost no time from and work made no claim for in- juries resulting January from this accident until 23, over months later.
On June 1952—15 months after the first acci painting neighbor’s dent—while the roof house, plaintiffs gave suddenly way left and hand wrist and grоund breaking he fell to a concrete floor on the level, right suffering leg heel and contusions. His was for in a cast six weeks. The accident accord occurred, ing plaintiff, as “I to follows: started at nine o’clock morning, and in the three o’clock in the afternoon only square yards X had more about two to do. To do I that had to the ladder roof, move about five or six square yards, And do times. those two I had to put position, g-ot I in make one more move. my the ladder up square and stain, and went finished the two roof, the I hand against tried to. left put my yards, I my before hand, know, right with worked to my I fell back collapsed. way* hand just gave left I from any it stop going and I could thought elbow, rolling on kept I didn’t succeed, further, the left. towards right hand,
“I for the ladder with grab my did lifted the ladder from the ladder, of the hold got all that ladder through commotion, roof. And gavе and out she and the went, ladder bottom, on way fell down.” and all ac- this second
It not until seven months after accident, first months after the twenty-two cident and for damages for sued the defendant plaintiff that acci- sustained both which injuries allegedly the first accident was Plaintiff contends dents. and that negligence the defendant’s attributable from the to his resulted wrist second accident first accident. he sustained for denied that it responsible Defendant further denied accident and first or second in- caused the second accident first accident the trial the course of therein. During received juries both presented by medical considerable the cru- is which raises and it this litigants in this appeal. point cial for in the returned a verdict
The jury *4 the in- upon based almost $11,000., entirely amount in the second accident. Defendant’s he suffered juries and for new for n.o.v. a trial were judgment motions the lower Court. by denied its is in this motion for appeal, pressing, Defendant Defendant contends com- (1) legally trial. a new to required establish a medical testimony petent * throughout, ours. Italics
423 (2) accidents causal connection the two between by plaintiff produced testimony that such not injuries (3) consequently suffered it is not liable for plaintiff a new therefore second aсcident and the granted. A the medical tes- review of trial should be timony pertinent de- substantiate authorities position. fendant’s injuries resulting
If to for wished recover him— it incumbent on from the second accident was by competent prove the facts of this ease—to under testimony that there was a causal and definite medical relationship Courts have the two accidents. between precise lay to down a standard which found it difficult question every medical fit case on the of whether can prove testimony necessary be- is to a causal connection prior injury. injury and a The neces- latest tween depend sity in each case medical will particular including, upon inter facts of that case in each kind of which occurred accident, alia, between the accidents, time interval exact manner activities between accidents, accident occurred. last Superior Pa. In v. 180 Ct. Ruckno, Washko Inc., required 121 A. 2d medical evidence was 456, 608, produced by heavy prove attack heart work (page thirty The Court said minutes before. done prove 609) duty “It that her hus : was claimant’s alleged from over-exertion: death resulted band’s Valley Wyoming v. 332 Pa. Co., Colleries Adamehick * relationship no causal is obvious Where thеre 401. necessary unequivocal is to estab- medical * 32, 403; Saylor Wentz, Pa. 73 A. 2d v. v. 365 Green Gill Cf. Superior 633; McCoy Co., A. 43 2d Gar 157 Pa. Ct. Steel ville Mosko, 523; Superior Spriggs, A. Ct. Stracka v. 102 Pa. v. 483; Superior Rubber Utzman Penna. 98 Pa. Ct. Pa. Superior Ct. 483.
424
Philadelphia Ab-
lish
Rich v.
the causal connection:
Superior
200.”
batoir
160 Pa.
Ct.
Co.,
Spring
On the
medical
was held to
hand,
unnecessary in
be
Tabuteau v. London
&G. H. Co.
351 Pa.
40 A.
Ltd.,
183,
2d
where
suffered
pain
groin
developed immediately
a hernia
misstepped
after he
on an uneven sidewalk. The Court
186)
(page
expert testimony
necessary
said
: “. . .
is not
(or injury)
immediately
where death
directly,
is so
naturally
or
probably,
the result of the accident
depend
that the connection between them does not
sole
ly
professional
expert
on the
witnesses:
Superior
Davis v.
80
McCoy
Davis,
Pa.
343;
Ct.
v.
Superior
Spriggs,
Pa.
102
Ct. 500,
In the instant the evidence case, the in- including terval of time between accidents and the manner in which the last accident occurred make it оbvious that only expert could connect the testimony two accidents. The second accident could have happened from any one of half a dozen different causes. There no ob- vious causal relationship between the accident of March 1951 and the accident of June 1952. The last accident could not be said reasonably layman— without be the natural guessing and probable re- —tо sult of the injuries suffered from the first accident. The second accident did not immediately directly result from the first accident nor was it the natural and probable result of the first accident which was so connected and so closely that a readily apparent lay- man could diagnose (except by guessing) causal connection. In other medical words, to establish —if it could—the causal necessary connec- tion between the two accidents. in order to
Plaintiff, prove causal connection between two called Dr. accidents, Herbert Kaplan, physician, Dr. London. Dr. family Kaplan after plaintiff treated both accidents, did not pre- present had that trial, before the
know, before) years viously (many His his left wrist. broken pertinent “I that it is feel was as follows: possible very highly probable of the because that pain burning which flew there, sensation to use his hand, I told the man and, understand, burning, possible type tin- had same it is pain opinion, boring my gling, the cause ... In —. collapse day to the due of the on that wrist pain persisting causalgia-like since the had been simplify day injury. If I can will it, of the [first] opinion my say him to this have caused could slide from the roof.” *7 produced on
Dr. the second doctor Russell London, question plaintiff, to the behalf testified relative рreviously “A. In of causation: a wrist fractured but permitting, according history, over to full function all years, paining consistently those and then from the episode, degenerative time of the second with changes previously we have mentioned in that wrist, pain I can conceivethat there is at the extremes of cer- length tain and for an excessive motion, time, patient could have caused the to his save hаnd sudden- ly and lost his balance.” history
Plaintiff’s medical revealed that before the first accident he had his broken left wrist and sus- injury joint tained an to the radial of his left arm and developed degenerative changes both had arthritic hypertension, may severe which of itself well cause painting dizziness. he Furthermore, had been this heavy for six he had hours; roof moved the ladder about during day; just six times that five or and had moved immediately the ladder before the accident. These im- portant Kaplan facts not were mentioned Dr. by Dr. London. Myers,
Dr. Ellwood S. who examined at response request, ques- defendant’s testified, to the tion of whether the second accident suffered as a result say definitely of the first accident: “A. I would My explain no. may reason for that is if I three-fold, unfortunately, that. Most this man Ias have told has, you, previous injuries two to this wrist. exam- From X-rays, previous ination of the he could not have, perfectly normally functioning goes a this, wrist. That presence without doubt because of the of arthritic change prevented in the radial head. That would have says anyone says, just no matter what he him, or what by looking X-rays, prevented at the it have would him bringing perfectly normally from that hand inside give helped him full function. It could not have to. prevent putting way It also would it all the out, prevented and to a certain extent it would have him up. getting may argue it It not have hurt I him, won’t injury preceded, that. But here is an and here injury preceded, top is another on of that gets help injury, third tie couldn’t but have a help I weak how don’t see he could But arm, it. injure on blame that an that didn’t even injured giving you the soft if bone, tissues, him, neuralgia want to term a or a it, am afraid neuritis, *8 I it. can’t see falling as
“As far his off roof is the concerned, anything upon my physical don’t know about but this, hypertension. the man has a examination, terrific He pressure, systolic, eight-six. has 204 blood over He has very poor eyesight. eyes, eyesight, His normal should twenty twenty-twenty. vision is be His over a hundred. certainly Those in factors, two must have themselves, bearing. hypertension Q. Does sometimes cause dizzi- definitely ness? it does.” Yes, A.
428 Wargo v. In settled. in this field is well
The law
Railways
Pittsburgh
638,
101 A. 2d
In
(page 501) “Moreover
:
said
A. 2d
103
Court
681,
testify,
expert
condition
not that
has to
probably
from
might
come
or even
did,*
have,
claimant
opinion
professional
that in his
accident,
alleged. A less
question
cause
came from the
in
result
required
opinion
expression
below the
direct
falls
legally
proof
com
not constitute
and does
standard of
petent
Machine
et al.,
v. Mesta
Co.
evidence: Vorbnoff
375 Pa.
A.
Powell v.
256;
Risser,
133
206,
The Dr. principle, mentioned authorities. the above unequivocally in- positively that the denied Myers resulted from accident juries in the second suffered injuries Dr. London, in the first accident. incurred injuries received testified that plaintiff’s witness, caused have” the second “could first accident * throughout, ours- Italics
429 by qualified opinion Ms Kaplan’s Dr. was accident. caused” have “could that tbe first accident probable” highly possible very “it is or that my “in also testified accident; it caused the second from the opinion him slide caused to this could have suf- medical roof.” None of required proof by the standard of ficient to meet the cited. cases hereinabove Benninger, A. 2d Pa. 105
In Nikisher
377
564,
v.
2d
v.
344 Pa.
25 A.
392,
182,
and Bender
281
Welsh,
upon by
tes-
medical
are relied
the lower Court,
required
timony
the causal rela-
not
to establish
tionship
and the cases are
accidents
between
two
clearly distinguishable.
facts
on their
unnecessary
trial
to discuss whether a new
It is
against
granted
the verdict was
should be
because
against
weight of the
evidence. Cf.
evidence
supra;
Pittsburgh Railways
go
376
v.
Co.,
Pa.,
War
Connecting
Monongahela
Duffy
R. R.
v. The
371
Co.,
Dupont Gallagher,
v.
89 A. 2d
360 Pa.
804;
Pa. 361,
Equitable
King
A. 2d
v.
Gas
307 Pa.
28;
419,
Co.,
Allegheny County,
A.
65;
Smith
377 Pa.
Dissenting Mr. Justice Musmanno: visiting be- On March while warehouse 7, 1951, longing & Emil Norristown, Rosbuck Sears, Florig, this and sustained fell case, J. injuries His left hand and wrist back. Kaplan, physician, informed after Dr. Herbert him, repairing treating for some time, the hand Florig process one and he advised to use a slow *10 430 atrophy.
the affected lest it In obedi- hand, waste and Morig ence to this a resumed his work as direction, painter. painting
On June was 1952, while he a the roof, ailing gave way (the plaintiff hand described it as a “collapse”), being prevent sliding' and, unable to his rolling slope working, down the on which he was dropped damaging he to the cement floor his beneath, right practically an heel to such extent has now his lost the use of foot. He sued Roebuck & Sears, claiming that his second accident the result injured through of debilitated hаnd which had been negligence the of the defendant at the time of the first jury accident. The returned a verdict of in $11,000 his favor. The defendant moved for a new trial, con- tending that there was no causal connection between the first second accidents. The lower Court re- reversing the fused new and this Court is trial, the lower Court. mishap way
Of if the course, second in no a sequel to the first the defendant is entitled a one, imрossible new trial for it would be for this Court any jury Court to much determine how the allowed the plaintiff for each misfortune. appeal really presents only question,
This one name- ly, consequence inevitably was the second fall so a of the first fall that the event of March can 7, be considered cause the event of 14, 1952, June question, This is a medical-factual an not effect? judicial appellate and we are one, outside our field juridical trying apply stethoscope to the heart problem. of Kaplan, physician,
Dr. testified: “In my opinion collapse the cause of the of the wrist on causalgia-like pain day was due to the which had. day persisting injury. since 'been If I can my opinion, simplify say, that this could will it, roof.”* have caused him to slide from the Opinion doc- Majority in the fault The sees some phrase him”, havе caused tor’s use of the “could part and crucial it overlooks the more essential collapse namely, Doctor’s “the cause answer, causalgia-like day due to the of the wrist on that day persisting pain of the since which had been injury (the doctor ex- 1951].” The of March 7, collapse pressed of the wrist no doubt about *11 namely, then the first and accident, caused what it, caused” him to “could have added that this condition being simply candid. Here he was slide from the roof. or he to be dishonest would have He have had would retrospective say infallible Cassandra to had to be an personal knowledge my positively: that the “I of know brought collapse Florig’s about the to of wrist foot.” his anyone actually
How would the not on doctor, plaintiff, the roof the know the mechanics of the with top plunge ground? the hоuse from the of to How testify beyond could the doctor was the ken what knowledge? categorically his did state of He that the pain collapsed because of the and weakness wrist re- sulting up jury It from the first accident. was to the workingman years age to decide whether a on a precipitate slanting roof could arrest a descent when power drained from one of his all and Ms wrists, en- impediment an tire left arm thus became instead of a gravitation. to the forces of staff of resistance picture must be added to this There fact that positively himself testified that it was the his caused the failure of left wrist which disastrous drop. hearing jury all this After did
* Italics mine.
find causal connection between first accident the second. hospital injured patient, suffering
If a
from an
foot
slips
to a
due
tortious
because of
accident,
falls,
leg,
per-
the weakness of that
and breaks a
foot,
responsible
injured
son
for the
foot
liable for
will be
leg
leg
as much as if he had
at
the broken
struck
during
original
the commission of the
tort. Nor would
change
patient
the situation
if the
had left the hos-
pital
leg subsequently,
long
his
broken
as
so
subsequent break
due to
the weakness of the foot.
only inquiry
us is
Thus,
before
whether there was
upon
jury
sufficient evidence
could base its
Florig
rooftop
fell
conclusion
from the
because
inability
precarious perch
to hold on
to his
as
a result
the weakness of his left
for which
wrist,
admittedly responsible.
agree
defendant
with
the lower Court that there
such
evidence. It is
noted
to be
that not even the defendant’s doctor ven-
say
that the
tured
second accident was
plaintiff’s exploded
not caused
the defection of the
helpless
wrist.
dispоsing
The
lower Court,
of the defendant’s
*12
judgment
properly
for
motion
n.o.v.,
rationalis-
tically
jury may
said: “The
have inferred that the sec-
original injury.
ond fall resulted from the
If
such
so,
supported by
inference was
of two medi-
experts
by
cal
also
of the
being
any
There
himself.
total absence of
evidence
pointed
any
other cause of
the second fall,
opinion
plaintiff’s
of the
we are
evidence fur-
including damages
a rational
for
nished
basis
a verdict
resulting from the second accident.”
agree
Judge
this
with
statement.
who
I
Forrest,
Opinion in the
lower
cited as
Court,
wrote
author-
position
ity
behalf
of the Court’s
the case of Bender
v.
344 Pa.
Welsh,
398.
believe
what we
good
said in
namely:
that case is still
“Evidence
law,
subsequent injury
is admissible to affect the meas-
damages
original injury
ure of
only
on the
if the sub-
sequent injury
proximately
by
original
cаused
negligence. Defendants contend that Mrs. Bender
slipped
independent
from an
cause and that therefore
original
way responsible,
citing
accident
inwas
no
Wineberg v. DuBois
Argued January 1957. Before J., Bell, C. Jones, *13 Jones JJ. Musmanno, Arnold, Chidsey, Cohen,