Using the Sudden Medical Emergency Defense in Pennsylvania

Every so often Pennsylvania appellate courts hand down a decision that addresses several novel and/or uncommon legal issues in one decision. When the courts render such a legal gem, the legal community should be aware of the decision. One such appellate decision is the state Superior Court’s opinion in the recently decided case of Shiner v. Ralston, No. 1791 MDA 2011, (Pa. Super. Feb. 22, 2013). In Shiner, a panel of the Superior Court addressed several interesting legal issues: (1) the distinction between the "sudden emergency doctrine" and the "sudden medical emergency defense"; (2) the defendants’ burden of proof in order to obtain summary judgment where they seek judgment based upon an affirmative defense; (3) the proof required for expert testimony where the party offering the testimony does not have the burden of proof; and (4) the moving party’s ability to obtain summary judgment under the Nanty-Glo rule where it relies upon its own witnesses’ testimony.

The Facts of Shiner

Shiner involved a motor vehicle accident in Centre County. The defendant-driver’s vehicle crossed a grass median divider and then struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff, Glenn Shiner, suffered serious injuries in the crash and the defendant-driver, Ralph W. Ralston Sr., was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy found Ralston suffered a cardiac dysrhythmia, secondary to severe coronary disease, which caused him to become unconscious and subsequently expire, according to the opinion. After suit was filed by Glenn and Beth Shiner, the defendants obtained a pathology expert as well as an accident reconstruction expert who issued reports concluding that Ralston became unconscious due to the effects of his unforeseen cardiovascular disease and his unconsciousness caused the crash. Importantly, the Shiners proffered the report of a pathologist who, while agreeing that Ralston suffered cardiac syncope due to coronary artery disease, which resulted in loss of control of his vehicle, also opined that Ralston had experienced signs and symptoms of his cardiac disease sufficiently before the accident to avert the crash, the opinion said.