*1 We fail to li find upon basis impose which to on ability Bessemer. The Bessemer and leases between Sterling Bessemer and light viewed in the Clinton, of their and the case language law similar interpreting vested no leases, right control or direction of the manner of mining Bessemer. Even if the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable—which were not—it would be anomalous to hold Ster the servants, ling free of fault mas Clinton, Bessemer, liable for ter, their fault. That water accumulated along the boundary line between es the two mines is but such accumulation water tablished, arose from a natural source—water upper levels in seeping to the lower levels—and was not created.6 artificially The hazard created accumulated water arose from the “robbing” of the barrier for which pillar, Bessemer was hazard way liable and to which Kutsch substantially contributed. Absent any basis law or imposition fact on Bessemer, liability the decree below must fall.
In view of our reversal of the we need con- decree, sider appeal neither Kutsch’s from the nor the decree motion quash that appeal.
Decree reversed. Costs on Kutsch. Appeal to No. March Term, dismissed. Costs on Kutsch. artificially- The cases relied on court below considered Schubert, McCormack Coal Co. v. created conditions. See: Pa. Acres, Inc., (1954) ; v. Rau Wilden A. 2d (1954). 2d 422 103 A. Appellant, Brodsky.
Niederman, *2 Argued 1969. Before J., Jones, C. Bell, May 2, JJ. Pomeroy, Roberts O’Brien, Cohen, Eagen, appellant. V. for Moss, Jerrold Harry for Carl K. with him Zuclcer, W. Kurtzman, appellee. 1970: January
Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts, Harry alleges No- Appellant, on that Niederman, walking the cor- with son at his he was vember Philadelphia. At Market Streets of 15th and ner complaint appellee appellant’s that, was asserts, time, negligent driving reckless motor vehicle a skidded the automobile of which result manner destroyed or down a fire struck the sidewalk onto ap- pole hydrant, newsstand and basket, a litter standing pellant’s at that time was next who son, immediately after this appellant. destructive Almost appellant appellee’s path car, claims was cut upon pain and that examina- chest severe suffered he hospital, for where he was confined five tion acute to have appellant was sustained diagnosed weeks, pec- angina coronary insufficiency, coronary failure, Consequent- infarction. possible myocardial toris, both appellant recovery appellee sought ly, shock disabilities and accompanying these severe pain. and mental on complaint was dismissed
Appellant’s reluctantly a cause preliminary objections failing state “impact rule” provides action under be no consequences there can inflicted in of con- and shock the absence negligently temporaneous impact. Appellant admitted that the ca- automobile had never struck his person. reering eventually noted “The rule judge will, doubt, rule rejected formerly as was the well-entrenched Harry immunities. It regrettable charitable *3 be plaintiff this may Niederman, action, to are prove injuries afforded the that his opportunity he just if just just disabling as as as as real, painful, had been struck motor vehi- physically by defendant’s . . . are bound forth by cle. the law as set However, Court.” Supreme come home.1 the cows We decide that on the
Today
appellant
before
may go
record
trial and if he
us,
be had from
proves
recovery may
neg
his
allegations,
despite the fact
in
appellant’s
ligent defendant,
impact.
arose
the absence of actual
juries
“It
fun
our
damental
common law
system
one
seek
redress for
substantial
‘The best statement
every
wrong.
responsible
is that a
wrongdoer
rule
proximate consequences
natural and
of his misconduct
10
Battalla v.
N.Y. 2d
State,
....’”
237, 240,
2d
(1961).
176 N.E.
our
N.Y.S. 2d 34, 36,
By
proceeds
path re
today Pennsylvania
along the
holding
our
neighboring jurisdictions,1
followed
cently
see
every
jurisdiction
other
which has
considered
Since
adopt
issue,
the rule
refused to
it. See
either abandoned
;
(1965)
We believe that it is not sufficient to perpetuate the old rule simply precedent. the name of Each objection every past raised pre- would appellant clude in this case from to trial can going now be answered effectively persuasively.
An prior analysis case law indicates there have been three basic arguments which in past would appellant. have defeated The first deals *4 Injuries Comment, Fright Contact, from L. Without 15 Cleve.-Mar. 331, (1966). 337 Rev. thirty-one jurisdictions impact A total of have considered the 22, perhaps (depending on rule. Of these 23 of resolution rejected Ohio) requirement in have confusion current Restatement, impact. (Second) §436, Reporter’s Torts Notes: See Company, Pennsylvania (Del. Railroad A. Robb v. 210 2d 709 Busch, 559, (1965) 1965) ; ; v. 214 45 N.J. A. 2d 12 Falzone Savard Inc., (Vt. Chevrolet, 1967). Cody A. 234 2d 656 v.
405 with medical science’s in difficulty proving causation between the claimed damages alleged fright. and the The second involves the fear of fraudulent or exag gerated claims. there is such Finally, the concern that a rule will precipitate flood of litigation. veritable See, Knaub e.g., v. 422 Pa. 220 A. Gotwalt, 2d 646 267, (not (1966) view a majority of the Bos court); ley v. Andrews, 393 Pa. 142 A. 263 2d (1958); Huston v. Freemansburg Borough, 61 Atl. 1022 (1905); v. Ewing Pittsburgh Pa. 147 Railway Co., 23 40, Atl. 340 (1892).
The objection first has been variously stated but the quotation set out representative below is ear some lier judicial sentiments. “In most it be would cases, impossible for medical prove science to sub these jective symptoms could not have possibly resulted or been aggravated or precipitated or by fright nervous tension or nervous shock or emotional or disturbance distress .... Medical could not science, repeat, prove that these could not have been caused precipi tated, aggravated by defendant’s alleged negligent act.” v. Bosley Pa. 142 Andrews, 393 at A. 2d 168-69, at 267. (Emphasis supplied.) While we this agree have been might appropriate an conclusion because of sophistication lack in the medical field when the impact doctrine was first announced 1888,2 would presently inappropriate for us to ignore all phenomenal advances medical science has in the last eighty years. achieved Today diseases 2 England Vic doctrine was first announced Coultas, Railways App. Commissioners v. & torian Cas. 222 Curiously enough only (1888). the rule was abandoned thirteen Sons, (1901) ; years v. & in Dulieu White K.B. 669 was this later spawning sufficiently block soon doctrine See, Pittsburgh Railway Ewing Co., e.g., country. Pa. Ry. Co., (1892) ; v. Rochester 151 N.Y. Mitchell Atl. (1896). N.E. 354
406 are much more comprehended
tbe for heart, example, open extent that heart is almost fully (to surgery the an and the effects everyday occurrence), hyperemo- tional human no shroud- body longer states the ed in mystery myth. equipment improved
New and research, education profession and an increased diagnostic techniques, now al of disease in general require us understanding credit to medical evidence. Other give greater ju have that this advancement recognized risdictions also in the medical arts should and could be legitimately in Bat in field. changes legal reflected See, e.g., talla, 10 N.Y. 2d 2d N.Y.S. State, (“we must... to an extent on (1961) rely N.E. 2d 729 sophistication profes of the medical the contemporary Robb v. Railroad sion”) ; Pennsylvania Company, A. 1965) (“the early difficulty 2d (Del. back ner resulting injury through fright tracing minimized of medi vous has been advance shock The American Law Institute cal science”). Finally, of a caveat from comm a deletion one its through expressed a similar view. has ents,3 objection this to medical invalidity of logical further that by noting can demonstrated proof absolutely where there is applied has been only. rule even slightest Once there is whatsoever. year Law Institute its commen American Tbe In the acknowledged scien of Torts Restatement to tbe first taries completely foolproof testimony might not be and medical tific opinion expresses no the unreliabili Institute area. “Tbe this necessary testimony establish the causal relation be ty bodily negligence harm other’s illness or and the the actor’s tween particular jurisdiction proper of a the Court not make policy, to actor hold refuse, of administrative a matter as brought was about the manner to another harm liable 1948; deleted in this caveat was But Subsection.” in this stated support strong medical belief believe competency to establish causal relation. has the profession now it has been impact, plaintiff held that recover can for any damages which resulted the accompany- ing even the impact had no causal con- fright, though nection with the injuries. The fright-induced rule been stated: sus- “However, plaintiff where, here, *6 tains bodily even trivial or minor in injuries, though which accompanied character, by fright mental peril traceable the which suffering directly to in the placed defendant’s negligence then mental the plaintiff, ais Potere suffering legitimate element damages.” v. Pa. 112 104 Philadelphia, A. 2d 581, 589, (1955).
It appears
that
completely inconsistent
to argue
the
profession
medical
to
absolutely unable
estab
lish a causal
in
connection
case
no
the
where there is
impact at
but
that
all,
impact
the
a
slightest
(e.g.,
bruised elbow and
in
sprained
Potere)4
ankle
suddenly
bestows upon our medical colleagues
knowledge
and facility to diagnose the causal connection between
emotional states and physical
injuries.
It can easily
be urged that recent advances in medical science have
upon
bestowed this ability
physicians; but
it is illogi
cal to
presence
that
argue
of some slight
has
injury
accomplished the same effect! As the Supreme Court
of our
state of Delaware
neighboring
recently said:
“. . . the line of cases permitting
recovery
serious
injuries
from
resulting
where
fright,
there
been but
impact
a trivial
in itself
little or
causing
no injury,
insuperable
demonstrates
there is
in
difficulty
in
most extreme ease
which
was allowed for
by
damage
because
caused
fear
there
was some concurrent con
Heights
Brooklyn
Co.,
App.
R.R.
tact
Jones
Div.
plaintiff
(1897).
hit in
There
was
a small
N.Y.S. 914
head
light bulb,
fell from the
which
roof
incandescent
of the car in
“impact”
riding.
plaintiff
plaintiff
Because of this
was
was
which
miscarriage
brought
permitted
for the
recover
was
on
to
accompanying shock.
wrongdoing
connection between the
cansal
tracing
Rail-
v. Pennsylvania
via the
Robb
fright.”
the injury
A.
712.
road
2d at
Company,
arguendo
great
if
that a
even we assume
Finally,
establishing
difficulty
deal
still
remains
suffi-
represent
causal
this still does
connection,
prove
reason to
an
deny appellant
opportunity
cient
believe
his case to
There is no reason to
jury.
diffi-
connection
here is
more
the causal
involved
jurors to
or for
prove
cult
lawyers
judges
comprehend than
others which occur elsewhere
many
difficulties
in the law. “We
there
realize
connection be-
the existence of
causal
determining
physical
injury
subsequent
tween
the extent of such
measuring
injury. However,
from negligence
connection
problem
causal
tracing
peculiar
to cases
is not
without
injury
diffi-
in all
types
litigation
any event,
occurs
...
plaintiff
should not bar
proof
culty
*7
fact
to convince the trier of
attempting
of
opportunity
N.J.
Busch,
of her claim.” Falzone v.
the truth
of
(1965).
recognize
214 A. 2d
15-16
We
559, 566,
Court as
Jersey Supreme
view of the New
the recent
jurisprudence.
of
representative
current
of fic-
objection includes the fear
major
second
The
claims.
It
and fraudulent
has been
injuries
titious
politeness:
of
degrees
first,
with
expressed
varying
Borough,
v. Freemansburg
548, 550-51,
Huston
Court indicated its lack
(1905),
Atl. 1022,
“In the
by observing:
claims like this
for
of respect
of
stimulated
ingenuity
century,
counsel,
half
last
encouraged
preju-
of clients
the cupidity
the action for
expanded
negligence.
has
juries,
of
dices
experience
judicial
a brief
to be
but
requires
.
. It
.
of
proportion
exaggeration
large
convinced
action
ordinary
physi-
fraud
actual
even
if
opened
and we
door
negligence,
injuries
cal
to this new invention the result would
great
be
danger,
if not disaster to
justice.”
the cause of
In recent cases,
that concern has been expressed in a more charitable
manner but the same denial of
in-
severe
juries has been the result.
“For every wholly genuine
and deserving
there
claim,
would
likely
a tremendous
number of
illusory
imaginative or
ones.”
‘faked’
Bosley Andrews,
For the first Hampshire the New Su proposition, preme provides Court significant support. us with “From the viewpoint of allowance for mental analogy, and for to mind and nerve well pain, injury as as body, in all given damage as items cases of liability impact. personal where there is It seem injury would them practically pretend and as difficult easy disprove them such cases as cases where there is intervening of transmittal.” agency *8 v. England Chiu chiolo New Wholesale Tailors, 1930). Savard (N.H. Atl. 543 See v. Cody 150 Chevrolet, (Vt. 1967) A. 2d 659 Inc., 234 (quoting In it is clear Ghiuehiolo). addition, abundantly where the supra, injury slight Potere was case, in the 410 as just
and for fraud was opportunity unrelated, in allowed. that situation was See great; yet recovery v. 10 N.Y. 2d 219 2d N.Y.S. Battalla, State, 237, 241, ac (1961) (“fraudulent N.E. 2d 731 176 34, 37, are injuries just easily feigned cidents and as slight-impact cases”). accept proposi we are unable to
Furthermore, judicial system general tion that our and the courts arise. with fraudulent claims when they cannot deal and medical charlatans Factual, unlikely legal, thought from a unmasked. same trial This emerge recent exposition opinions been given compelling our courts of highest neighboring states, Delaware,5 York.7 New and of these We, join New Jersey,6 course, and other authorities8 in as falla- patently rejecting 5 illusory claims, danger “As to the of and fictional this is pain constantly problem; a claims new our courts deal with for subjective symptoms only; suffering upon the courts and based and equal profession danger . . . been to the the medical have found specu adequacy proof, problems of of the avoidance [T]he injury conjectural personal damages, are common lative satisfactorily surmountable, being generally solved and are cases Pennsylvania Railroad ease.” Robb v. after our courts case (Del. 1965). Company, at A. 2d 714 injuries, possibility on fictitious of actions based “As to may deny type wrong for a court should not may people fraudulent institute because some in serious harm result control, through rules retain sufficient courts Our trial actions. evidence, sufficiency requirements as to of evidence juries danger against find without safeguard will facts (N.J. Busch, proof.” adequate 214 A. 2d at legally Falzone v. 1965). specula litigation fraud, a measure of “Although extra possibilities, court to are, course, no reason es tion argument jurisdiction. ex ‘The from mere its a measure chew justice, resulting in to a itself Court pediency commend cannot remedy legal right in all because logical cases aof denial ” urged injury one.’ Battalla a real a fictitious some 1961). (N.Y. State, at 731 2d N.E. Psychic Liability Injuries, Lambert, 41 Bos- See, Tort e.g., betrays hopeless argument “This be- 590-91: L. Rev. ton D. *9 cions the argument that would bar ap- actions such as pellant’s because some other litigants present might false or feigned claims. “Public the policy requires with courts, the aid of the legal profes- medical to sions, find ways means to solve satisfactorily the problems presented—not thus expedient to ways Railroad, avoid them.” Robb v. Com- Pennsylvania, 210 A. 2d pany, 714. at
The last argument urged
proponents
of the
impact
rule is that: “If
in
permitted
a
recovery
case such as
our Courts
a
this,
swamped
would be
virtual avalanche of cases for
situa
damages
many
tions and cases hitherto
in
unrecoverable
Pennsylvania.”
Kn
aub
Gotwalt,
at
crease in doctrine. those states have abandoned this Ok rina v. Midwestern 165 N.W. 2d Corp., (“there (Minn. no indication that 1969) [the spawned abandonment has either rule] a flood of or bred rash of claims litigation fraudulent adoption in see Relation 1892”); since its Smith, L. Rev. 193 Injury Emotions to 30 Va. Disease, Con Injuries Without Fright From (1944); Comment, *10 L. at (1966). Cleve.-Mar. Rev. tact, more compelling than an academic Secondly, apparent over the real increases debate concept of fundamental of our litigation, amount is the be that should not system any such increase judicial judi- or relevant to the of a availability determinative impartial of individual adjudication cial forum for the wrongs “It business of to remedy the the law rights. liti- of ‘flood of expense deserve even at the a it, that incompetence and it a confession of pitiful gation’; upon justice of court of to relief deny on the part will much work give it the courts too ground the Suf- Intentional Infliction of Mental to do.” Prosser, L. We (1939). A 37 Mich. Rev. 874 fering: Tort, New the “too much work to do” accept do not obviously where responsibility exactly the place rationale. We in have not relief to those who denying be: should judicial on but the machinery been injured, fulfill make itself obligation to its to Commonwealth say Who is to which class to litigants. available denied to our plaintiffs should be access aggrieved speculation that the workload will courts because this Court is al- Certainly unwilling be burden? influence a determination considerations such low will be litigants permitted class of denied whether of its claims. See Robb v. Penn- adjudication to seek 210 A. Company, 2d at 714 (Del. Railroad sylvania increased the courts litigation, there (“if 1965) task”); Falzone cope with v. Busch, willingly must (“the 1965) proper is an (N.J. remedy A. 2d at expansion of the judicial in machinery, decrease availability justice”); Battalla v. N.E. State, 2d at 731 (N.Y. 1961) (“it is the of the courts to duty willingly accept the opportunity to settle dis these putes”).
We have carefully examined the arguments sup- port impact the old rule. It seems clear to us even if these rationales may have had validity ear- lier in 1969 years, continued adherence to the rule makes little sense. We believe that our analysis of impact underpinnings proves doctrine they are now so weak and that arguments opposing doctrine are so that an strong of earlier overruling compelled. cases is
We today choose to abandon requirement aof physical precondition as a dam- ages caused proximately the tort those only cases like the one before us where plaintiff was personal danger physical impact because of di- rection of a negligent force him against and where *11 plaintiff did fear actually the physical impact. Since appellant’s complaint alleges facts which if proven will establish that the negligent force aimed him was at put and him in personal danger physical impact, and that he did fear actually this case must force, proceed to trial.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas Phila- delphia is reversed and County appellee’s preliminary objections dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell: The too often Majority that forget an emotionally or claim appealing heart-rending produces often bad precedent. and a dangerous law* sets * expressed: axiom was thus The old “Hard cases bad make law.' Box
Pandora’s Opinion majority tremendous three commits The Pennsylvania’s overruling “im- grievous and errors regrettable pact error disastrous The first and rule.” they open out of which Pandora’s famous Box, is that personal trespass multiplicity suits flow a will injuries most include the These will diseases. and/or imagi- exaggerated that or claims fictitious false upon (as Majority as- nation can conceive—based plain- negligent sert) near force so the direction of a impact. dangerous physical he tiff feared a Guessing Game A they major Majority is error of the second game” guessing only a “medical substitute Pennsylvania’s and and well-established clear definite game.” guessing “impact add a “Judicial but rule,” agree can and and few States on clear writers* Few Majority recovery, itself formula for definite specific, and bound formulate definite clear, cannot recovery in rule or this so-called arized standard “impact” Majority now It abolish. field, imagine stronger for not abandon reasons difficult Pennsylvania’s ing clear and well-established jumble indefinite far diverse, rule than Opinion. majority forth fetched views set * including pro- Many today, law school students writers prominence way fessors, rise fame believe denouncing publicly through decisions field Law advocating and different of new substitution standards “modernity.” nor such advocates the decisions Neither name *12 Opinions of other suffi- reasonings State Courts are found Pennsylvania’s “impact us abandon ciently persuasive to cause rule.”
Stare Decisis The third error major of the Majority they is that deal another fatal or near-fatal blow to stare decisis. Once again majority present Supreme Court has cavalierly buried or ignored principle basic and the fundamental precept upon which the House of Law was built and maintained. Upon Rock of this all Gibraltar, Judges all public as officials, well all people can see and know Pennsylvania, on their rely respective their their rights, powers, their duties, obligations limitations. It regretta- ble to be compelled to say present decision of Court of Pennsylvania “for good this this day and train only.” What a and what mockery catastrophe, of Law and of Justice!
What this Court said was well-established sound law as recently as 1966 today been rendered by the Majority obsolete and worthless “all of phenomenal advances medical science has achieved the last 80 years.” Can be more anything ridiculous than the argument because of phenomenal ad- vances medical science years last 80 some- thing has miraculously come to light particular medical field in the last three years?
In Knaub v.
422 Pa.
Gotwalt,
220 A.
267,
2d 646
(page 270)
said
:
(1966),
“‘The rule
is long
in Pennsylvania
well established
there
can be
damages
injuries
resulting
or
shock or
nervous
mental or emotional disturbances
they
accompanied
unless
distress,
by physical
impact:
Koplin v.
injury
physical
Louis K. Liggett
322 Pa.
Howarth v. Adams
Transportation
Philadelphia
Co.,
Atl.
v.
536; Hess
380
89;
A.
Potere v. Philadelphia,
358 Pa.
56
2d
144,
Pa.
384
100;
Rosenthal,
Pa.
112 A. 2d
Gefter v.
581,
393 Pa.
Bosley
161,
In Cucinotti v.
Ortmann,
Pa.,
ex-
for
members of this Court
all the
speaking
Cohen,
:
29)
said
“It
cept
(page
Justice Musmanno,
no
there can be
Pennsylvania
rule
well-settled
injuries
of
result-
for unintentional
recovery
damages
emotion-
or mental or
fright
from
or nervous shock
ing
accompanied
al
they
disturbances
unless
distress,
An-
impact: Bosley
v.
by physical
injury
physical
v.
Koplin
In Huston v.
Pa.
Freemansburg Borough,
Justice
Chief
speaking
61 Atl.
Mitchell,
there
be no
stated
can
unanimous Court,
or other mental
suffering
uncon-
damages
but
“It
injury,
requires
nected
said:
physical
with
except
[*]
All the
Mr. Justice
members
Musmanno
Supreme
Justice Mr. Cohen.
Court
joined
this
Opinion,
experience to be convinced
judicial
large
brief
proportion
and even
exaggeration
actual
fraud
action
ordinary
physical
injuries
neg
door
this new inven
ligence,
opened
if
tion the result
be great
would
not disaster
danger,
if
to the cause
&
practical
Spade v.
justice:*
Lynn
Boston R. R.
168 Mass.
Mitchell
Rochester
Co.,
285;
Ry.
This Court has iterated and well-es reiterated this or tablished rule principle of Stare based on Decisis experience Judicial numerous times since before and 212 Pa. Huston, (1905),** supra.
In Burtt Pa. Will, 353 A. 2d the Court 217, 670, said (pages 232) : “The 231, doctrine of stare decisis prevails still . Pennsylvania. . This al- . Court has ways rigidly adhered to the rule stare decisis. . . . All of the cases our reciting policy strictly adhere to the rule of stare decisis need not be collected re- and viewed. What was said by us in a few of the latest cases will suffice: Mr. Chief Justice Maxey said St. Monongahela Ry. v. Phila. etCo. 603, al., 2dA. ‘The 616, doctrine stare decisis is recognized applied by the courts of this Common- wealth . . and in Davis v. Pennsylvania Co., etc., Pa. 2d at A. 66: ‘An interpretation of law appellate followed an consistently court over so long period has become imbedded fundamentally * ours, throughout, Italics unless otherwise noted. ** Indeed, supported has been I believe Stare Decisis by virtually every Pennsylvania, approved Chief Justice includ- ing particularly Black, Loweie, Chief Chief Justice Chief Justice Mitchell, Moschziskee, Chief Justice Chief Justice von Justice Schaffer, Kephaet, Maxey, Chief Justice Chief Jus- Justice Chief Steen, pres- Jones, Chief Dbew, Justice Justice and the Chief tice writer. ent should Commonwealth
in the common law the except through legislative changed which enactment, be proper remedy always one under available and the government. would Otherwise the law our scheme of changing successively become the mere football personnel certaintie of “the knowne court, wisely safe- “is the which Lord Coke so said the law”, ” destroyed.’ (Italics utterly tie of would all”, Opinion.) Burtt Will Bosley Pa. 2d 263,
In 142 A. Andrews, dissents) (in only said two this Court decision with 168-169) recovery fright, (pages fear, : “To allow emotional dis- mental or nervous shock, humiliation, ac- all the disturbances illnesses tress—with company been or therefrom—where there has result open physical injury impact, or would a Pandora’s box. every wholly genuine deserving claim, . . . For illusory likely number of be a there would tremendous imaginative or Talced’ones.” or
By permitting in cases such as this—for injuries, physical psychic alleged emotional, mental, repeat, Majority physical impact, the will, without open doors an avalanche of fraudulent wide *15 imaginary un- or claims which will illness emotional delay fairly meritorious and will claims, thousands of tremendously swamp already Courts overburdened our joke of Justice. a out and make important problem enormously which the Ma- One ignore jority blithely is that while medical science has progress century, in this it made tremendous knowledge prove stage yet where it can a reached certainty—or diversity a without tremendous with opinion which would therefore to amount of sincere guess—both legal nothing medical and but a causa- especially in the emotional disturbance and heart tion, fields. disease very many examples give a few
I will plaintiff might everyone: be-driving A occur will her car or a alertly with her mind when preoccupied, sudden or unexpected or hn loud exceptionally noise automobile horn parallel behind or her or with car, a sudden loud nearby unexpected bell fire engine or or a siren, nearby unexpected sudden frightening buzz-saw or a unexpected noise, nearby explosion or blasting or unexpected a nerve- dynamiting, nearby wracking produced noise on by a or riveting street, shrill and unexpected blast of train a a at a at spot or nearby crossing, a witnessing nearby horrify- ing or approach accident, a car or over the near middle even line, though it is driven to side its own in ample time avoid an or accident, any one dozen other everyday nearby events—each of can these cause or aggravate or fright nervous shock or emotion- al distress or nervous tension or mental disturbance If physical ills. any one these and other events without it compensable, physical cause impact, may normal as well as nervous people, persons and persons who are or mentally disturbed mentally ill, honestly believe that the sudden and unexpected nearby event and believed them to be caused threatening, them or nervous shock or nervous tension with subse- emotional distress or quent pain or or heart suffering or or attack some kind of miscarriage, disease or physi- In cal most injury. cases, impossible would be to prove medical science subjective these symptoms or could not have possibly could resulted from or been or precipitated by fright or shock aggravated nervous or nervous tension emotional or or disturbance distress, produce can turn of which an ulcer or each head- under fainting spells or some or, aches circumstances, or or serious disease heart other attack, injurious I Medical could not science, repeat, prove but results. or whether these could could only guess not have could precipitated aggravated caused defend- been act. negligent alleged ant’s *16 variety plaintiff alleges
Here he suffered a immediately car heart attacks after defendant’s hy skidded onto the sidewalk and struck down a fire pole injured a litter a drant, basket, newsstand, plaintiff’s plaintiff standing son who was next occurred. when the accident While the chain events Mr. Niederman’s have contributed to or caused possible sit heart there are innumerable other attacks, plaintiff’s uations could have contributed to al which legal leged causation heart attacks but which no Equally important, could established.* it is mat a knowledge peo ter of universal numerous medical ple countrysides engaged their walk the streets and pursuits daily normal who have had heart disease years having months or for several mani without its fested itself. say Quo to Stare is
Should Vadis? Or Decisis, re- Stare Decisis like who was lifted from but Antaeus, turned to the or like Mohammed’s which earth, coffin, suspended one between Heaven and with no earth, knowing way or or when which it will fall? rise Or destroyed, Tyre, it like Nineveh and which were but every temporary glory? and then are now restored * witnessing Instance, heart attack caused For a could be nearby noise, violence, being sudden loud an awakened act of tension, fright any upset, getting elevator, an emotional or stuck unexpected fall, running train, pressure, worry, anger, an for a ex- event, explosion, sports professional a loud thunder citement at a family fire, family, quarrel, lightning, a bitter a death sharp, crash, possession, market stock of a valuable theft or loss shouts, sirens, bells, screams, whistles, unexpected loud, sounds bottles, balloons, mines, construction, explosions fire- heavy Kentucky Derby (or large losing crackers, winning bet at the or job earnings, races), un- sweepstakes or an any fear of loss or telegram containing diagnosis, a expected medical unfavorable snatched, purse getting pocket picked having news, or one’s bad important phone place trying call an “busy signal” when everyday would other occurrences help, number of or upset anger. emotional sudden cause *17 no Today, one knows from Court week week or session to Court session the or today what law is yester- day (retroactive or tomor- what it will be decisions) row. How can anyone what the law will today know be or what tomorrow, anyone’s pow- rights, privileges, ers, duties, limitations liabilities responsibilities, or are, will be?
The basic principle of the Stare Decisis which is bedrock for our all not the Law is as immutable as law of the Medes and Persians. the It be changed by the Legislature under some and, circumstances, may be the I changed by Courts. hold would that principle of Stare Decisis should be always applied, irrespective personnel (or this changing of of Supreme) except Court, (1) where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania of prior convinced that decisions the Court are or of irreconcilable; (2) application a rule or principle has great created con- undoubtedly fusion; or (3) rule of law has been fluctuat- only or ingly applied; (4) misconception correct a in an occasional or decision; (5) in those where rare cases the Supreme Court is convinced the reason for law undoubtedly no longer and modern exists, circum- stances and Justice to require combine or justify and no one’s change, present personal vested or rights interests will be property change. injured Change of circumstances modern circumstances not does ever nor has it heretofore been mean, considered as the of equivalent personnel change Court, political of the social or substitution aof philosophy language the Constitution or Judge of a writ- or for well-settled principles ten instrument, law. Mr. J. Justice Pennsylvania’s most Owen Roberts, member the Supreme illustrious Court of the United Opinion in a Smith dissenting States, Allwright, thus aptly U.S. strikingly expressed the erosion or concerning views abolition his “The concern principle my of Stare Decisis: reason that announced overruling is that the instant decision, bring adjudications about nine tends to years ago, rail- restricted into this tribunal the same class train I have good road ticket, day only. current assurance, decisions, view repudiat- opinion shortly announced today may new have they who deem by justices ed and overruled on the subject.” light Opin-
Mr. concurring his Justice Frankfurter, said: ion in Green v. United 356 U.S. States, wrong on the Court been say everybody “To *18 deemed and that that which has been 150 years be of bone should now part and sinew law . another . . The admonition extirpated quite thing. is branch a third of Mr. Justice Brandéis are not disregarded.” never of should be the Legislature regarded is generally who Mr. Justice Douglas, in an article Stare opponent Decisis, the leading 1949, Law of June for the Columbia Review written “Uniformity continuity said: p. Yol. 49, not If they activities. are necessary many are law conveyances wills, the integrity contracts, present, And no equal there impaired. is will and securities in the applied if rule is negligence law a under justice pro- in the afternoon. Stare Decisis not morning but ar- that men trade and moorings may so some vides confidence. with Stare Decisis their affairs range element out of law and capricious take serves It strong to a is tie society. stability to give past.” has to future Eagen expressed the well same concern Mr. Justice of Commonwealth in the recent case Decisis for Stare 164 A. 2d : (1960) Pa. Woodhouse, form republican government in a “Unquestionably, and sta- enjoy, order, certainty privileged are as we for the pro- essential safety law bility tection of all. Stare Decisis trifled should not be with. principles, the law knows no chaos and If confu- fixed certainly sion will If it clear ... is follow. longer reason for a law no and modern circum- exists justice require change, stances rights and no vested change will be be made.” violated, should What Chief Justice Black Court said this Oyer, concerning (1853), McDowell v. presently Stare apposite, is is Decisis, most “It viz., precedent said sometimes adherence to judge, slavish; that it fetters the mind of the and com pels principle. him to decide But without reference to prin let it be remembered that stare decisis* is itself a ciple great magnitude importance. abso It is lutely necessary permanence to the formation any system jurisprudence. may Without it Ave fair ly be said to have no law; is a and established law fixed depending slightest degree rule on ,* caprice may happen of those who to administer it.” forgotten I add that Moreover, which is often by Majority—it important one of the most duties appellate legal signposts of an Court to erect lan- with guage clearly, Avisely definitely, inscribed thereon so they may easily and well that who read understand. Majority This the have likewise failed to in this do, case. *19 very strongly
For I the above reasons, dissent. * Oyer Opinion. in McDowell v. Italics Appellant. v. Brown,
Commonwealth