Smith, R. v. Wells, A.
212 A.3d 554 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania's Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361, a driver's failure to operate their vehicle at a speed that permits them to stop within the assured clear distance ahead constitutes negligence per se, absent a valid legal excuse.
Facts:
- On April 24, 2012, Richard Smith was driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when he saw traffic braking ahead of him.
- Smith successfully brought his Buick to a complete stop within the assured clear distance, avoiding a collision with the vehicle in front of him.
- Andrew J. Wells, driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee behind Smith, failed to stop in time.
- Wells admitted that he did not see Smith's brake lights illuminate and only noticed them after Smith's car was already stopped.
- Wells' Jeep rear-ended Smith's Buick, pushing it into the car ahead, which in turn hit another car, resulting in a four-car pile-up.
- There was no evidence of inclement weather, hazardous road conditions, or any contributory negligence by Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Smith sued Andrew J. Wells for negligence in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- At trial, Smith moved for a directed verdict on the issue of Wells' negligence, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict finding that Wells was not negligent.
- Smith then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the negligence question, which the trial court also denied.
- Smith, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his motions to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
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 driver's failure to stop within the assured clear distance ahead, resulting in a rear-end collision, constitute negligence as a matter of law under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361?
Opinions:
Majority - Kunselman, J.
Yes, a driver's failure to stop within the assured clear distance ahead constitutes negligence as a matter of law. The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, at 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3361, establishes two distinct prohibitions on driving speed. The second clause, 'nor at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring his vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead,' operates independently of the first clause's 'reasonable and prudent' standard. When a driver, like Wells, violates this second clause by rear-ending a stopped vehicle and offers no valid excuse (such as a sudden emergency, mechanical failure, or road hazard), the violation is negligence per se. The trial court erred by not recognizing this and allowing the jury to decide the issue of negligence, as the evidence established Wells's breach of duty beyond peradventure.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and strengthens the 'assured clear distance ahead' rule in Pennsylvania, establishing its violation as negligence per se rather than mere evidence of negligence. It effectively removes the question of breach of duty from the jury in most rear-end collision cases where the defendant cannot present a valid excuse. This holding makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs in such cases to obtain a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of negligence, shifting the trial's focus primarily to the elements of causation and damages. The court's explicit rejection of older, more lenient precedent like Cirquitella modernizes the standard of care for today's high-speed highway conditions.
