# McKEE BY McKEE v. Evans

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 30, 1988 · 380 Pa. Super. 120

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703819

## Case

- **Full name:** Colleen McKEE, a Minor by Ruth McKEE, Her Parent and Natural Guardian, and Ruth McKee in Her Own Right, Appellants, v. Michael P. EVANS, Raymond P. Linden and Mark H. Trecki; Margaret CARROLL, a Minor, by Olive CARROLL, Her Parent and Natural Guardian; And Jacqueline Carroll, a Minor, by Olive Carroll, Her Parent and Natural Guardian; And Olive Carroll, in Her Own Right, v. Michael P. EVANS, Raymond P. Linden and Mark H. Trecki. Appeal of Margaret CARROLL. Ricky Joseph WAITE, Appellant, v. Michael P. EVANS, Raymond P. Linden and Mark H. Trecki
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 30, 1988
- **Citations:** 380 Pa. Super. 120; 551 A.2d 260; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3663
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wieand
- **Judges:** Brosky, Wieand, McEwen, Olszewski, Beck, Tamilia, Kelly, Popovich, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 38 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/9703819

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the driver being chased had not faced a sudden emergency, since he had several options available and time to choose any one of them in a rational, conscious manner, the court declared that this driver should not be permitted to reap the benefit of his own folly…
- finding that where jury found defendant negligent, but also determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the subject accident, new trial was warranted on both liability and damages

## Opinion text

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the decision of the majority to award a new trial. In my judgment, the trial court’s jury instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine was unnecessary and unwarranted. It would have been adequate to instruct the jury to determine whether Linden had exercised reasonable care in view of the circumstances with which he was confronted. I would also hold that it was error to permit Officer Vallone to express an opinion regarding the location of the impact when, as Officer Vallone conceded, her opin *167 ion was based in part upon the extra-judicial statements of witnesses at the scene of the accident.
OLSZEWSKI, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703819. Public record. Not legal advice.