Opinion

Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co.

  • 431 Pa. 446
  • 246 A.2d 668
  • 1968 Pa. LEXIS 641
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Oct 3, 1968
Status
Published
Author
Cohen
On the bench
Bell, Mtjsmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
Cited by
147 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.4%

"The burden of proof may be placed on the party who must prove the existence of a fact rather than on the party who must prove its nonexistence."

How later courts described this case

  • "The burden of proof may be placed on the party who must prove the existence of a fact rather than on the party who must prove its nonexistence."
  • "If the existence or nonexistence of a fact can be demonstrated by one party to a controversy much more easily than by the other party, the burden of proof may be placed on that party who "can discharge it most easily.”
  • burden of proof may be placed on party who must prove existence of fact rather than on party who must prove its nonexistence
  • the trier of fact is not required to accept uncontradicted testimony as true

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen :

In the recently decided case of Petrone v. Moffat Coal Co., 427 Pa. 5 , 233 A. 2d 891 (1967), we deter *459 mined that in a situation arising under the Occupational Disease Act, Act of June 21, 1939, P. L. 566, §301 (e), 77 P.S. §1401 (e), when a claimant is found physically capable of performing light work of a general character, the burden is upon the parties from whom compensation is sought to show that such work is available to the claimant.

The instant case does not involve that situation, since here a definite determination was made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that the claimant was 40% disabled by a back injury suffered in an accident at work. The record discloses that an impartial physician appointed by the Board testified unequivocally that there was a disability percentage of 85 to J¡0 percent and that this disability was applicable to any type of work. The Board adopted 40% as its finding. Its action was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County and the Superior Court.

The long established practice in Workmen’s Compensation litigation heretofore accepted a percentage of disability without the requirement of additional proof. I would not change that practice.

I dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.