Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Torts

TortsNegligenceCausationContributory Negligencenegligencecausationproximate causecontributory negligence

Facts

The plaintiff was a motorman employed by a traction company operating cars through Sugar Notch under an ordinance limiting speed on borough streets to eight miles an hour. While driving through the borough during a violent windstorm, he passed under a large chestnut tree that then blew down onto the car and injured him. Although there was some dispute over the tree's condition, the verdict settled the borough's negligence in allowing it to remain. The evidence fairly established that the car was traveling considerably faster than the ordinance allowed.

Issue

Does a motorman's operation of a streetcar at a speed exceeding a borough ordinance bar or limit his recovery when a negligently maintained tree falls onto the car as it passes beneath? More specifically, was the excessive speed a legal cause of the accident or contributory negligence?

Rule

Violation of an ordinance does not by itself deprive a plaintiff of the right to recover. Recovery is barred or limited only if the unlawful conduct caused the accident or amounted to contributory negligence by contributing to the injury in a legally cognizable way.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Lena Ortiz was driving a delivery van for Riverbend Floral at 40 mph on a city street posted at 25 mph under a municipal ordinance. As she passed directly beneath a negligently maintained overhead banner support owned by the city, the support suddenly snapped in a gust and fell onto the van roof, injuring her.

If Lena sues the city for negligence, what is the strongest argument that her ordinance violation does not bar recovery?

Explanation. The majority rule is that violating a speed ordinance does not automatically defeat recovery. Recovery is barred only if the unlawful speed caused the accident or amounted to contributory negligence. Where the object falls onto the plaintiff as she passes beneath, the speed is treated as a mere chance circumstance fixing her presence at that moment, not a legal cause. (Derived from Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough (n.d.).)