Flagiello v. Crilly

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a judgment of nonsuit in a negligence action arising from a vehicle striking a child in an alley. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing the driver's negligence or proximate causation, and that any finding of negligence would have been based on speculation or conjecture.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that Crilly was negligent or that any negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
2. The mere happening of an accident, including a moving vehicle's collision with a pedestrian, does not establish negligence, raise an inference or presumption of negligence, or make out a prima facie negligence case.
3. Res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and the jury could not find liability based merely on surmise, guess, speculation, or conjecture.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, established that Crilly was negligent and that her negligence proximately caused the accident.
2. Whether the mere occurrence of a vehicle-pedestrian collision supported an inference or presumption of negligence or permitted application of res ipsa loquitur.
3. Whether the plaintiffs' circumstantial evidence was sufficient to submit the negligence claim to the jury rather than sustain a nonsuit.

Disposition

affirmed