Loughner, Appellant, v. Schmelzer.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
April 19, 1966
421 Pa. 283 | 218 A.2d 768
Decree affirmed. Each party to pay own costs.
CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL:
I have hitherto expressed at great length and in very strong language my disagreement with and dissent to the Court‘s Opinion in Catherwood Estate, 405 Pa. 61, 173 A. 2d 86, and in Norvell Estate, 415 Pa. 427, 203 A. 2d 538, in which they overruled many recent decisions of the Court which were directly in point and admittedly governed the issues there involved. Although my views and convictions have not changed, since I believe in stare decisis I must join in the Opinion of the Court.
Norman D. Jaffe, with him Galbreath, Braham, Gregg, Kirkpatrick & Jaffe, for appellants.
Lee C. McCandless, with him McCandless & McCandless, for appellee.
OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL, April 19, 1966:
The sole question in this case is a narrow one. In an action of trespass for damages resulting from a collision of two automobiles is it a reversible error to admit, over plaintiffs’ objection, evidence that the plaintiff was convicted before the Quarter Sessions Court of a violation of The Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P. L. 58, §1004, 75 P.S. §1004, namely, failure to drive on the right half of the highway?* We hold that evidence of the conviction of a traffic violation or of small misdemeanors is not admissible in a civil suit for dam
Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, brought this action in trespass against defendant for damages arising out of the collision of plaintiffs’ and defendant‘s automobiles. Each party alleged that the other was driving on the wrong side of the road. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was dismissed. After judgment was entered on the verdict, plaintiffs thereupon appealed, alleging that the admission, over their objection, of evidence of a summary conviction of a violation of The Vehicle Code was reversible error. The decision of the lower Court must be reversed.
In Hurtt v. Stirone, 416 Pa. 493, 206 A. 2d 624, the Court aptly said (page 499): “... we recognize a valid existing distinction in cases involving the record of conviction of relatively minor matters such as traffic violations, lesser misdemeanors, and matters of like import. Especially in traffic violations, expediency and convenience, rather than guilt, often control the defendant‘s ‘trial technique‘.... Compare also the effect given in Pennsylvania to a plea of nolo contendere: Teslovich v. Fireman‘s Fund Ins. Co., 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, 168 A. 354 (1933). The policy shifts with regard to major criminal convictions such as the one presented.”
We have held that an important distinction exists between traffic violations and lesser misdemeanors on the one hand and felonies and their consequences on the other hand. The law with respect to the latter class of cases may be found in Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 412 Pa. 222, 194 A. 2d 423; Kravitz Estate, 418 Pa. 319, 211 A. 2d 443; Commonwealth v. Evans, 399 Pa. 387, 160 A. 2d 407; Greifer‘s Estate, 333 Pa. 278, 5 A. 2d 118; Mineo v. Eureka Security Fire & Marine Insurance Co.,
Our conclusion is strengthened by
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN :
I disagree with the majority‘s reasoning and interpretation of
That was the law before Hurtt v. Stirone, 416 Pa. 493, 206 A. 2d 624 (1965). The attempt to establish exceptions to the Hurtt v. Stirone determination for “relatively minor matters such as traffic violations, lesser misdemeanors, and matters of like import” is so indefinite that it will generate considerable litigation.
I would adhere to the general rule of evidence that would prevent the admission of a conviction of a criminal offense in subsequent civil actions; but if I were to depart from that rule, I would require more certain
I concur in the result.