# Elder v. Orluck

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 10, 1985 · 334 Pa. Super. 329

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763587

## Case

- **Full name:** George R.H. ELDER v. Adam ORLUCK v. BOROUGH OF HARRISVILLE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 10, 1985
- **Citations:** 334 Pa. Super. 329; 483 A.2d 474; 488 A.2d 474
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Montgomery
- **Judges:** Brosky, Sole, Montgomery
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9763587

## Opinion text

MONTGOMERY, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse and order a new trial on two grounds. First, I disagree with the conclusion reached by the Majority that it was not error for the lower court to have charged the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. I do not believe that the record contains any evidence of the type which would have supported a charge regarding that doctrine. Moreover, I believe that the error in giving that charge was compounded by the lower court’s explanation to the jury of the assured clear distance rule. In the fact situation presented in the instant case, I believe that the charges on sudden emergency and assured clear distance were mutually exclusive. See and compare Sullivan v. Wolson, 262 Pa.Super. 397 , 396 A.2d 1230 (1978). Confusion by the jury was unavoidable in these circumstances and a new trial is mandated.
Secondly, I would award a new trial based upon my conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to find the Borough of Harrisville negligent. In light of the record as a whole, I cannot conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to show a departure by the Borough from a reasonable standard of care in connection with the events leading to the collision which gave rise to this litigation. Thus, I would also reverse on that ground.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763587. Public record. Not legal advice.