*1 Appellant, County Miller, Delaware Memorial
Hospital. C. J., Mus- Before 1968. Argued January 10, Bell, Roberts, O’Brien Eagen, manno, Jones, Cohen, JJ. appellant. for Freeman,
David appellee. for Brooks, J. John S.
Opinion Mr. Chief Justice Bell, March 1968: instituted
Plaintiff, eiglity-tliree-year-old woman, an action in Memori- trespass Delaware against County al for Hospital injuries to recover sus- seeking damages *2 tained when she fell out of her bed. Plaintiff was ad- mitted to defendant suffer- hospital January 5, 1964, bronchopneumonia from On ing and heart disease. January she fell from her bed. Her com- 11, 1964, plaint failing that alleged defendant was negligent “. . . to on protective plaintiff’s secure devices properly bed. . .” complaint . The further that as alleges in- result of plaintiff the fall sustained permanent to earn juries deprived “she has been of her ability a livelihood.”
Plaintiff testified that while in bed she lying I “reached for poeketbook on the table . . . and my took hold of the rail for and down went support, I superior with it.” Both the nurse and her attending testified prior that the rail had been secured properly to the fall.
The returned for jury and, a verdict defendant, after plaintiff’s motion for a trial had been dis- new and from judgment was entered on the verdict missed, plaintiff appeal. this took this judgment Plaintiff-appellant for alleges grounds two a new both of which are devoid of merit. trial, Plaintiff not contend and could not success- fully contend that defendant is an insurer. Instead, plaintiff upon relies expressly doctrine of exclusive control and on the doctrine of impliedly ipsa loqui- res applicable. tur. Neither is
In 425 Pa. 228 Engle Spino, 254, 745, pertinently (page 257): said “‘The Court mere hap- . . an accident . does not establish pening negligence or a presumption an inference nor raise negligence prima facie case of out negligence: make nor [citing ” decisions this supporting The Court Court].’ “: 257) ‘The (page law is stated likewise further clear proving by fair burden of that the has the negr preponderance of defendant was the evidence that proximate ligent cause and that his supra; key, of the Stimac v. Bar accident: ” King, A. 2d 93.’ 388 Pa. 132, Schofield leading con- The on the doctrine of case Transporta- Pennsylvania Izzi v. trol case, A. In tion 412 Pa. 2d 784. that Co., guest plaintiff, in an which was a who trolley, following contended trackless defendant’s injuries detached due to a flash caused his were trolley. re- Court defendant’s overhead application jected of the doctrine* (pages prior many analyzing decisions said and after 564-566):
“Exclusive Control. *3 held and Court below “Plaintiff contended the the doc- and under the aforesaid facts circumstances question applied, of the trine of control and exclusive negligence a therefore thereunder P.T.C.’s was and question jury. res for the This was error. Neither ap- ipsa loquitur nor doctrine of exclusive control the prior plies [citing of this Court]. : decisions appears of exclusive control to be “The doctrine widely not Eooclusivecontrol alone* is misunderstood. apply or the For ex to invoke doctrine. sufficient pedestrian ample, which strikes a on the an yet control of the driver, street is negligence principles and not that of exclusive con of person pedestrian, apply.** step If a or a or on; trol * Original Opinion. in Italics Opinion'] Original in [Footnotes “** is driven off the an automobile curve road on a when Even plaintiff passen- driver is killed and the and its into a creek and car trolley on or car is trolley injured, a ping off, company, in of its operating the exclusive control is exclu of of and not that negligence the principles yet If injured control a is while apply.* passenger sive or off or while getting on a railroad track walking object injured falling if a person by a or a is train, its in control in a the train is the exclusive home, in the exclusive and the home is operating company negli principles of the possession owner, yet If and not that of exclusive control gence apply.** was plane a airplane crashes killing passenger, in of the the exclusive the exclusive control but pilot, control doctrine does not and fac apply.*** Finally, a point and when tually directly controlling, from with has become standard dislodged trolley flash the trol injures without an electric person, in the exclusive control of the com ley operating must a fair (1) pre pany, yet of the evidence that defendant was ponderance (a) manner specific its negligent (b) negligence cause of the proximate accident and (2) ipsa of exclusive control and loquitur doctrines res do supra. Cases apply: injured, seriously the test is ger and the doctrine apply. Montgomery, Miller v. supra. “* Rapid Company, Transit Pa. Staller Philadelphia Rapid Company, 289; Transit Cutler *4 351, 434. Atl. 179 Pa. 319 “** Pennsylvania Company, Railroad Pa. v. 319 Dobrowolski Reading Company 488; and Railroad v.
235, Atl. 178 Morrow, Pa., supra; also, 375; Hummell, v. 403 cf. Stewart 44 Pa. Neff, 521, 160; Lotito, Novak v. A. 2d 399 161 Pa. 399 v. Haddon Bank, 707; National v. McDowell 407 193, Davies 2dA. 159 Pa. supra. 620, “*** Blair, A. Rennekamp Pa. 2d 669.” 375 101 v.
508 support which infra these cases
“Before we discuss propositions, to mentioned deem wise the above we which control, doctrine of exclusive reiterate dangerous is often been termed a doctrine, has applied only very analysis unusual condi under last long negates necessity. only of It tions because and rules of evidence which have become established rules applied The should be of . . . doctrine substantive law. present: following only are all* of the elements where (a) thing un caused the accident is where which or manu control** of or was made der (b) and* the accident defendant; factured happen injury ordinarily not if the defendant would ar or manufactured the exercised due or made care, (c) of due and* the evidence care; ticle with where equally injury or accident avail the cause of the parties, exclusively to able to both but is accessible (d) possession of the and* defendant; and within the exceptional very accident itself is unusual or plaintiff harm to or one of his class the likelihood of reasonably prevented by have been foreseen and could princi (e) general care; of and* the exercise due ples applied of have theretofore been facts.” to such
Judgment affirmed. * Opinion. Original Italics ** satisfy requirement this to tlie In order cases have held that had that defendant both of must management injuring agency and exclusive the circum Co., 559, T. 412 Izzi v. P. Pa. 195 the accident: stances 113, McKerns, 115, 30; Pa. A. 340 16 2d Annett 784; v. Saldukas Company, 589, 591-592, 97; 333 Pa. A. 2d Stores American Co., 400, Superior City Bottle 203 Pa. Glass Ct. v. Oil Silverman Superior Genetti, 471, 509; Pa. Ct. Drill 2dA. Harper James, 953; Law Anno., A.L.R. 185; 2dA. O.J.S., Torts, §42; Prosser, et §220.10 65A §19.7; Law Torts, seq.
Mr. Mr. Justice Justice Mr. Justice Cohen, Jones, Eagen in the result. and Mr. Justice Roberts concur by
Dissenting Opinion Mr. Musmanno: Justice more I in decision is dissent this case. Since the not enter I or based on a factual will situation, less I would into a discussion of the merits. However, Opinion Majority to say elevated like to that the has height of exclusive unreachable the doctrine almost entirely nullifying ex- that control. It comes close to principle cellent of law. Opin- Majority
The illustrations enumerated says Majority disturbing. ion the are For instance, “ dislodged if from a standard has become ‘a injures trolley and an electric flash with without ” application person,’ a the trolley admittedly in apply, though was even company. operating To control of the the exclusive prove person require injured in case to such a preponderance that the defendant the evidence effectually specific to negligent be in a manner would places deprive justice, him burden him of for it beyond capacity to meet. his only walking concerned with
If I on a sidewalk, am suddenly my reaching and an destination, pedestrian’s me lane of travel and strikes invades why driver I to that the have should down, speaks thing negligent? motorist for itself. The exercising possibly been due care and have could highway, climb the curb yet to leave his car allow warning pedestrians without even and bowl opportunity driver would have Of course, toot. ensuing any that a situation lawsuit factual to show cope capacity caused the with, accident, to beyond his a situation who have such should driver is the but proving nonnegligence, not I amwho burden life, the sidewalk and the treadmill of carefully pacing find possible fault of any my own, without then, in a ru- hospital at the looking up ceiling bed, myself *6 strange ways motorists, minating courts.
Harrington, Appellant, Carroll.