Gift v. Palmer
1958 Pa. LEXIS 481, 141 A.2d 408, 392 Pa. 628 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When direct evidence of negligence is unavailable, a plaintiff must present circumstantial evidence that provides the defendant's negligence as the only reasonable inference for the cause of the accident; the mere happening of an accident is insufficient to establish negligence.
Facts:
- Five minutes before the accident, Robert Gift, age 3, was seen sitting on his front doorstep playing with his sister and two other girls.
- The defendant was driving east along Mt. Oliver Street in Pittsburgh on a clear day.
- The street was 30 feet wide with trolley tracks in the middle, and no cars were parked on the south side where the accident occurred.
- The defendant stated he felt something hit his front bumper, which he initially thought was a stone.
- He continued driving until he looked in his rearview mirror and saw Robert Gift lying in the street.
- The defendant then stopped his vehicle and picked up the child.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the moment of impact.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Gift's family sued the defendant for personal injuries in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court entered a compulsory nonsuit, effectively dismissing the case for lack of proof.
- The plaintiff, Robert Gift, appealed the entry of the nonsuit to the Supreme 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 a defendant's admission of feeling an impact and later seeing a child in the street, without any other evidence regarding the defendant's speed or the child's position immediately prior to the accident, constitute sufficient proof of negligence to overcome a nonsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bell
No. A defendant's admission of feeling an impact and later seeing a child in the street, without more, is insufficient evidence to prove negligence. The law requires a plaintiff to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was negligent and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The mere happening of an accident does not constitute evidence of negligence. In this case, there was no evidence of the defendant's speed, the child's location immediately before the impact, or any circumstances that would show the defendant could have seen the child in a place of danger and avoided the collision through the exercise of reasonable care. Without such evidence, a finding of negligence would be based on mere speculation or conjecture, which is impermissible. The court relied on precedents like Ebersole v. Beistline and Finnin v. Neubert, which established that circumstantial evidence must be able to describe or visualize what actually happened and point to the defendant's negligence as the sole reasonable inference.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Musmanno
The opinion notes that Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents but does not provide any reasoning or a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent burden of proof on plaintiffs in negligence actions that rely solely on circumstantial evidence. It solidifies the principle that liability cannot be based on speculation, even in cases involving sympathetic plaintiffs like a very young child who is legally incapable of contributory negligence. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for a plaintiff to succeed in an unwitnessed 'dart-out' accident case without concrete evidence of the driver's specific negligent act, such as speeding or inattention. It underscores that the legal system prioritizes proof over inference, requiring evidence that makes negligence the only logical conclusion, not just a possible one.
