Fredericks v. Castora
241 Pa. Super. 211, 360 A.2d 696 (1976)
Rule of Law:
The law of vehicle negligence holds all motorists to a single standard of care, that of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances, and does not impose a higher duty of care based on a driver's professional experience or training.
Facts:
- Thomas Fredericks was a passenger in a Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission vehicle driven by Donald Terwilliger.
- Terwilliger pulled his vehicle onto the shoulder of the turnpike to prepare to make a U-turn through an opening in the median divider.
- As Terwilliger's vehicle proceeded to cross the eastbound lanes, it was struck by a truck driven by Charles Castora, which had been following from 600 to 800 feet behind.
- A second truck, driven by Melvin Whiteacre, attempted to pass the wreckage, jack-knifed, and may have struck the other vehicles.
- Fredericks was seriously injured as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Thomas Fredericks sued truck drivers Charles Castora and Melvin Whiteacre, along with their respective employers, in a state trial court.
- Subsequently, Donald Terwilliger and the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission were joined as additional defendants.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for Fredericks against only defendant Donald Terwilliger, finding in favor of all other defendants.
- Plaintiff Fredericks (appellant) and defendant Terwilliger (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the law impose a higher standard of care on motorists based on their professional experience, beyond the ordinary standard of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The law does not impose a higher standard of care on motorists based on their professional experience. All operators of motor vehicles are held to a single standard of care, which is that of a reasonable, prudent person under the circumstances. The court found no legal precedent to support creating a higher standard for experienced, professional drivers. Citing Adley Express Co. v. Willard, the court affirmed that professional drivers are chargeable only with the failure to exercise the ordinary care required of all motorists. The court reasoned that varying the standard of care according to a driver's experience would make the application of any uniform standard impossible and would unnecessarily complicate the law of vehicle negligence. The court also found that any error in the jury instruction on proximate cause was harmless when viewed in the context of the entire charge, which repeatedly emphasized the correct 'substantial factor' test.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the objective and uniform 'reasonable person' standard in vehicle negligence cases, explicitly rejecting the creation of a specialized, higher standard of care for professional or highly experienced drivers. By doing so, the court promotes predictability and consistency in tort law, ensuring all drivers are judged by the same external measure rather than their individual, subjective abilities or experience. This holding prevents the complication of negligence analysis with inquiries into a driver's specific background and avoids a slippery slope of creating variable standards for different classes of drivers.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Fredericks v. Castora (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"