NEGLIENCE-COMPARTIVE NEGLIENCE-SUBMISSION TO JURY

Dailey v. Smith, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 442 (PA Superior Ct., October 10, 2024) (Colins, J.)
Given the evidence, jury could reasonably conclude without expert testimony that Plaintiff Smith’s driving 20-40% faster than the speed limit effected Defendant’s ability to see him in time and to judge her ability to make a left-hand turn and therefore was one of the causes of the accident. The jury also concluded that Smith’s speeding contributed to the force of the accident and was therefore the cause of his injuries. This Court has held previously that in an accident of this type, lay testimony that the oncoming car was speeding – and that the turning driver did not see the oncoming car when he began his turn – was sufficient to the jury to find the oncoming driver viable for negligence. Reid 419 Atlantic 2d., at 39. It was argued that the trial was limited to the question of comparative negligence. The Court did not agree and sent the case back for vacating of the judgment in favor of Smith and remanding the case for new trial and liability and damages at which comparative negligence would be an issue.