539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995).
Justice Montemuro delivered opinion
Facts:
- July 15, 1987, plain. Stewart stopped at def.'s shop and offered assist. to repair an auto fuel tank
- Plain. suggested and poured gasoline into the carburetor
- Def was to turn the key in the ignition when specified
- Car backfired, there was an explosion, and Plain severely burned on upper body
- Plain. asked judge to instruct jury gasoline reqr'd "high degree of care"
- Judge didn't and jury ruled in favor of def.
Whether there exists a higher standard of "extraordinary care" for the use of dangerous instrumentalities over and above the standard of "reasonable care" such that the trial court erred for failing to give an instruction to the jury that the Appellee should have used a "high degree of care" in handling gasoline?
Holding: No. There is only one standard of care and that standard is "reasonable care".
Reasoning:
- Is only one standard of care and it is reasonable care (restatement (second) of torts)
- Standard doesn't vary, but care that is reasonable to require of actor varies w/ danger involved in act and is proportionate to it
- greater the danger, greater the care to be exercised
- Konchar v. Cebular reaffirmed general principle that care employed by reasonable man must be proportionate to danger of activity
- References to "higher standard of care" did not create second tier of "extraordinary care" over and above reasonable care
- level of care is in proportion to danger involved in his act
- Commonwealth only recognizes one s.o.c. in negligence actions involving dangerous instruments
- Looked at jury instructions
- judge properly instructed jury
- found nothing misleading, confusing or unclear in judge's instructions
- Jury had tools to examine case and determine if def. was reqr'd to use a "higher degree of care"
Rule: Only one standard of care and that is reasonable care; under said standard, level of care must be proportionate to the danger involved
No comments:
Post a Comment