Fredericks v. Castora

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976 · Torts

TortsNegligenceJury InstructionsProximate CauseStandard of CareWaiverordinary carereasonable prudent person

Facts

Fredericks was a passenger in a Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission vehicle driven by Terwilliger. Terwilliger pulled onto the berm and began a U-turn through a divider opening across the eastbound lanes, where the vehicle was struck by a truck driven by Castora that had been following 600 to 800 feet behind. A second truck driven by Whiteacre jack-knifed while attempting to pass the wreckage, and it was disputed whether that truck struck any other vehicle. Fredericks sued the truck drivers and their employers, and Terwilliger and the Turnpike Commission were later joined as additional defendants.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct that experienced professional truck drivers are held to a higher standard of care than ordinary motorists, by including foreseeability language in its proximate-cause instruction, and by inadequately addressing allegedly prejudicial testimony that mentioned the death of Castora's child.

Rule

Experienced truck drivers are held to the same ordinary standard of due care as all motorists; Pennsylvania does not impose a higher negligence standard based solely on the driver's experience or occupation. Proximate cause requires that the defendant's conduct be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, while foreseeability pertains to negligence and duty rather than proximate cause. A jury charge must be assessed as a whole, and an isolated misplacement of an otherwise correct concept is not reversible error without prejudice; objections not preserved by requesting clarification or including the matter in points for charge are waived.

🔒

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.

On Interstate 70 near Columbus, Jordan Pike, a plaintiff, was injured when a delivery tractor-trailer driven by Raul Mendez sideswiped her car during a lane change. At trial, evidence showed Raul had logged 28 years as a commercial truck driver and had completed numerous employer safety courses.

Jordan asks the judge to instruct the jury that Raul must be judged by a higher standard of care than an ordinary motorist because of his long professional experience. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a motor vehicle operator, including an experienced professional truck driver, is not held to a heightened negligence standard based solely on experience or occupation. The proper standard is ordinary due care: what a reasonable, prudent person would do under the circumstances. The majority rejected varying the standard by driving experience because that would undermine a reasonably uniform negligence standard.