Plaintiff brings action for personal injuries sustained when the car of defendant P, negligently driven, struck the rear of the car of defendant R, which was parked on the highway in violation of the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code. The lower court gave verdict and judgment for plaintiff against both defendants. Defendant R appeals. Held, reversed, and judgment entered for defendant R. In order for defendant R to be liable it must appear that his illegal parking was a concurrent cause of the accident; and in cases which involve illegally parked vehicles the Pennsylvania courts have adopted the following rule as the test of proximate cause:
" . . . Where a second actor has become aware of the existence of a potential danger created by the negligence of an original tort-feasor, and thereafter, by an independent act of negligence, brings about an accident, the first tort-feasor is relieved of liability, because the condition created by him was merely a circumstance of the accident and not its proximate cause. Where, however, the second actor does not become apprised of such danger until his own negligence, added to that of the existing perilous condition, has made the accident inevitable, the negligent acts of the two tort-feasors are contributing causes and proximate factors in the happening of the accident and impose liability upon both of the guilty parties."
The evidence in this case indicates that the defendant P was sufficiently aware of the danger created by defendant R's illegal parking to have avoided the accident by the exercise of due care. Venorick v. Revetta , (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943), 33 A. (2d) 655.
Michigan Law Review,
NEGLIGENCE -AUTOMOBILES - ILLEGAL PARKING - DOES NEGLIGENCE OF SECOND ACTOR RELIEVE ORIGINAL TORT-FEASOR OF LIABILITY?,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol42/iss4/11