# Kukowski v. Kukowski

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 21, 1989 · 385 Pa. Super. 172

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698440

## Case

- **Full name:** Chester KUKOWSKI and Sophie Kukowski, H/W v. Chester KUKOWSKI and Matt Slap Chevrolet, Inc. Appeal of MATT SLAP CHEVROLET, INC.; Chester KUKOWSKI and Sophie Kukowski, H/w, Appellants v. Chester KUKOWSKI and Matt Slap Chevrolet, Inc.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 385 Pa. Super. 172; 560 A.2d 222; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1812
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Tamilia
- **Judges:** Montemuro, Tamilia, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9698440

## Opinion text

TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result as to remand for the purpose of reconsideration of delay damages in light of new Rule 238, and I also concur in the analysis by. the majority of the interplay of the emergency doctrine and the assured clear distance rule. However, I respectfully dissent to the conclusion by the majority that the trial court’s charge on the emergency doctrine was ignored by the jury and therefore was harmless.
We are unable to say to what extent the jury considered the effect of that charge on their decision to apportion damages 40 per cent against Matt Slap Chevrolet and 60 per cent against Chester Kukowski. Pursuant to the analysis of the interrelationship between the emergency doctrine and the assured clear distance rule, which I believe is sound and correct, a jury charge in keeping with that analysis and which made certain that the emergency doctrine did not apply, could well have turned the jury away from a finding of negligence against Matt Slap or reduced its apportionment against it considerably.
I believe the only manner in which justice can be rendered in this case is to grant a new trial with directions that the sudden emergency charge not be given.
Should the result of a new trial once against be in favor of the appellee, then the remand instructions as to the appeal of Rule 238 damages would apply.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698440. Public record. Not legal advice.