Benjamin M.H. Goshko

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that a plaintiff’s speeding alone warranted a comparative negligence instruction, even without clear causation or expert testimony. This decision suggests that a plaintiff’s statutory violation may be sufficient to justify a comparative negligence charge, regardless of its direct impact on the accident.

In the underlying personal injury motor vehicle accident, Dailey made an improper left turn in front of Smith, who conceded she was speeding by traveling at 35 mph in a 25-mph roadway. At trial, the lower court granted Smith’s motion for a directed verdict and did not charge the jury on comparative negligence. 

The Superior Court reversed, holding that Smith’s speeding, in and of itself, warranted a comparative negligence instruction and, thus, her motion for directed verdict should have been denied. 

The impact of this holding is that it provides that a statutory violation by a plaintiff appears to be all that is needed to warrant a comparative negligence instruction, even where causation from the violation is attenuated and/or unsupported by expert testimony. 

---

 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}