Stewart v. Motts

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In negligence actions, there is only one standard of care: reasonable care under the circumstances. The amount of care required of a reasonable person varies and is proportionate to the danger of the activity, meaning that handling dangerous instrumentalities requires a greater degree of care than ordinary activities.

Facts:

On July 15, 1987, Jonathon Stewart went to Martin Motts' auto repair shop.
Stewart offered to assist Motts in repairing an automobile fuel tank.
To start the car without its gas tank attached, Stewart suggested and then proceeded to pour gasoline directly into the car's carburetor.
Motts was positioned to turn the ignition key at a given moment.
When Motts turned the key, the car's engine backfired.
The backfire caused an explosion, which severely burned Stewart.

Procedural Posture:

Jonathon Stewart (plaintiff) sued Martin Motts (defendant) for personal injuries in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, a trial court.
Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Motts.
Stewart (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Stewart (appellant) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth's highest 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 Pennsylvania law recognize a separate, heightened standard of "extraordinary care" for activities involving dangerous instrumentalities, like gasoline, that is distinct from the general standard of "reasonable care under the circumstances"?

Opinions:

Majority - Montemuro, Justice

No. Pennsylvania law does not recognize a separate, heightened standard of care for dangerous instrumentalities; there is only one standard of care, which is reasonable care under the circumstances. The court clarified that the standard of care never varies, but the amount of care that is reasonable is proportionate to the danger involved in the act. Previous cases using phrases like 'higher degree of care' were not creating a new legal standard but were merely recognizing that a reasonable person must exercise more caution when faced with greater danger, such as handling gasoline or firearms. The court reconciled prior case law, including 'Kuhns v. Brugger', by interpreting the phrase 'extraordinary care' as a description of what reasonable care looks like in a high-risk situation, not as a separate legal duty. The trial court's instruction to the jury was adequate because it explained that the amount of care required must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved, which correctly conveyed the law without needing to use the specific phrase 'high degree of care'.

Analysis:

This decision harmonizes conflicting language in Pennsylvania's negligence jurisprudence by rejecting a tiered system of care (i.e., 'ordinary' vs. 'extraordinary'). The court clarifies that the 'reasonable person' standard is a single, flexible standard that adapts to the circumstances of each case. By holding that greater danger simply requires more careful conduct under the single standard of 'reasonable care,' the court provides a clearer and more consistent framework for trial courts instructing juries in cases involving dangerous instrumentalities, thereby preventing confusion about whether a special, heightened legal duty applies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Stewart v. Motts (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature