# Abbotts Dairies v. Commonwealth

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 8, 1978 · 38 Pa. Commw. 423

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6364681

## Case

- **Full name:** Abbotts Dairies and Its Insurer, American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board and Betty Yates
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 8, 1978
- **Citations:** 38 Pa. Commw. 423; 393 A.2d 517; 1978 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1410
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Disalle
- **Judges:** Blatt, Crumlish, Disalle
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6364681

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Jiidge DiSalle :
I respectfully dissent. Section 301(a) of the Act, 77 P.S. §431, provides that “no compensation shall be paid when the injury or death ... is caused by the em *429 ployee’s violation of law.” In my judgment, the employer Has not established that the violation here, even if present, caused the accident.
There is a presumption that the decedent was acting with due care at the time of the accident. See Pritchard v. Malatesta, 421 Pa. 11 , 218 A.2d 753 (1966). In addition, it is well settled that the mere happening of an accident does not establish negligence nor raise an inference or presumption of negligence. See Engle v. Spino, 425 Pa. 254 , 228 A.2d 745 ; Fegely v. Costello, 417 Pa. 448 , 208 A.2d 243 . Given these propositions, it is my view that the employer has not met his burden of showing that the employe’s operation of the vehicle was the proximate cause of the accident.
The Board found that the referee’s conclusion that decedent was intoxicated was not supported by the evidence. Further, the Board reasoned that such a finding, even if correct, was insufficient to warrant denial of benefits since the causal factor was absent. I would affirm the Board.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6364681. Public record. Not legal advice.