A Few of My Favorite . . .
Judge’s Opinions
Dale
Larrimore, Esquire
At this time of year, minds
sometimes wander into a few of our favorite things. As an attorney researching
the law for my clients’ cases, I enjoy running across opinions written by the
Honorable Michael A. Musmanno. They are always worth the read and are
frequently added to my growing list of favorite opinions to be used when
arguing on behalf of my clients.
Born in 1897, Michael Musmanno was elected as a Republican state legislator in Pennsylvania, and then elected as the youngest judge in Allegheny County. He enlisted in the Navy during World War II, was governor of an occupied district in Italy after the war, and then served as a presiding judge for one of the Nuremberg trials. He was elected as a justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1951, where he served until his death in 1968, when he was widely regarded as the most respected jurist in the state.
Any fan of exquisite judicial opinion writing appreciates the prose of Justice Musmanno. His writing is filled with heart-felt passion and brutal common sense, delivered in highly literate and often hilarious prose. The following are just a few of my favorite quotes from so many Musmanno opinions.
“Backing up a truck, where it is known that people are congregated, is conduct as morally reprehensible and legally culpable as pulling the trigger of a shotgun without first ascertaining whether the gun is loaded.” Sankey v. Youn [1]
Born in 1897, Michael Musmanno was elected as a Republican state legislator in Pennsylvania, and then elected as the youngest judge in Allegheny County. He enlisted in the Navy during World War II, was governor of an occupied district in Italy after the war, and then served as a presiding judge for one of the Nuremberg trials. He was elected as a justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1951, where he served until his death in 1968, when he was widely regarded as the most respected jurist in the state.
Any fan of exquisite judicial opinion writing appreciates the prose of Justice Musmanno. His writing is filled with heart-felt passion and brutal common sense, delivered in highly literate and often hilarious prose. The following are just a few of my favorite quotes from so many Musmanno opinions.
“Backing up a truck, where it is known that people are congregated, is conduct as morally reprehensible and legally culpable as pulling the trigger of a shotgun without first ascertaining whether the gun is loaded.” Sankey v. Youn [1]
“I
concur with the majority opinion with regard to liability of the [defendant]
for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, but dissent from the decision to
lop off $4,000 from the verdict returned by the jury. Expert testimony
established that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury to his back and that
the pathological condition resulting from that injury will become progressively
worse….The [verdict] did not shock the conscience of the court and jury which
saw and heard the plaintiff and saw and heard the testimony of all the doctors
in the case. How can we then, by a simple reading of the printed page, diagnose
with such medical precision and probe with such scientific accuracy, that we
can apply the scalpel of appellate absolutism and amputate away what we have no
right to touch except under the most extraordinary circumstances which
assuredly are not present here? [This] verdict for the injuries sustained by
the plaintiff does not shock my sense of justice, but a needless amputation
does.” Kopka v. Bell Telephone Company[2]
“Every person on a highway, while required to employ his senses in detecting and avoiding danger, is under no compulsion to assume that his fellow travelers are bereft of their senses or that they will assault him with a weapon or automobile fender. He has the right to assume that since stop signs are beacons of safety other drivers will no more turn a blind eye to them than a ship’s master at the helm would ignore a lighthouse on a stormy night and a calamitous sea.” Taylor v. Mountz [3]
“A pedestrian who has violated no traffic law and is traversing a street at a regular crossing has the right to stop traffic until he passes by in safety, even as Moses held back the Red Sea. To say that a pedestrian may not cross a street merely because an automobile may be in view is equivalent to saying that the machine has rights superior to those of a human being. The converse is true. Everything else being equal, the automobile must give way to the prerogatives of the foot passenger who does not wear a steel coat and is not equipped with bumpers and fenders to protect him in any conflict with his four-wheeled potential adversary.” Frisina v. Dailey [4]
“If a hospital functions as a business institution, by charging and receiving money for what it offers, it must be a business establishment also in meeting obligations it incurs in running that establishment. One of those inescapable obligations is that it must exercise a proper degree of care for its patients, and, to the extent that it fails in that care, it should be liable in damages.” Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital [5]
In granting a new trial to a plaintiff passenger after a jury found in favor of both defendant drivers: “There is no evidence that would exonerate both defendants. Each defendant shot crippling shots of negligence at the other….The physical circumstances of the event excluded the possibility that all evidentiary shots went wild. Nor would it be just or logical that the only one who should be hit by the fusillade was the person who already was the innocent victim of the highway.” Salvio v. Musgrave [6]
“The motorist who says that skidding caused his car to be operated in a wrong direction on that part of the highway where he has no right to be at all must show that he was as innocent of fault as a child riding a tricycle on the sidewalk outside the Sunday School from which he has just emerged.” Blockinger v. Schweitzer [7]
In reading opinions by the Honorable Michael Musmanno, I always learn a little more about the law, and about life.
“Every person on a highway, while required to employ his senses in detecting and avoiding danger, is under no compulsion to assume that his fellow travelers are bereft of their senses or that they will assault him with a weapon or automobile fender. He has the right to assume that since stop signs are beacons of safety other drivers will no more turn a blind eye to them than a ship’s master at the helm would ignore a lighthouse on a stormy night and a calamitous sea.” Taylor v. Mountz [3]
“A pedestrian who has violated no traffic law and is traversing a street at a regular crossing has the right to stop traffic until he passes by in safety, even as Moses held back the Red Sea. To say that a pedestrian may not cross a street merely because an automobile may be in view is equivalent to saying that the machine has rights superior to those of a human being. The converse is true. Everything else being equal, the automobile must give way to the prerogatives of the foot passenger who does not wear a steel coat and is not equipped with bumpers and fenders to protect him in any conflict with his four-wheeled potential adversary.” Frisina v. Dailey [4]
“If a hospital functions as a business institution, by charging and receiving money for what it offers, it must be a business establishment also in meeting obligations it incurs in running that establishment. One of those inescapable obligations is that it must exercise a proper degree of care for its patients, and, to the extent that it fails in that care, it should be liable in damages.” Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital [5]
In granting a new trial to a plaintiff passenger after a jury found in favor of both defendant drivers: “There is no evidence that would exonerate both defendants. Each defendant shot crippling shots of negligence at the other….The physical circumstances of the event excluded the possibility that all evidentiary shots went wild. Nor would it be just or logical that the only one who should be hit by the fusillade was the person who already was the innocent victim of the highway.” Salvio v. Musgrave [6]
“The motorist who says that skidding caused his car to be operated in a wrong direction on that part of the highway where he has no right to be at all must show that he was as innocent of fault as a child riding a tricycle on the sidewalk outside the Sunday School from which he has just emerged.” Blockinger v. Schweitzer [7]
In reading opinions by the Honorable Michael Musmanno, I always learn a little more about the law, and about life.
©Copyright 2016, Dale
G. Larrimore, Esquire
First published September 2016 in The Verdict, Vol. 2016-2017, Issue 1, published by the
Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, Philadelphia, PA.
[1] 88 A.2d 94 (Pa. 1952).
[2] 91 A.2d 232 (Pa.
1952).
[3]
127 A.2d
730 (Pa. 1956).
[4] 150 A.2d 348
(Pa. 1959).
[5]
208 A.2d 193 (Pa. 1965).
[6] 214 A.2d 226
(Pa. 1965).
[7] 214 A.2d 244 (Pa. 1965).
No comments:
Post a Comment