A case about whether a mother who did not buckle her young child into the back seat of a ride-hailing vehicle can be convicted of child endangerment has showcased division among the Pennsylvania Supreme Court about what role common sense and morality should play in adjudicating cases.

On Aug. 25, the justices largely agreed that the Superior Court’s decision upholding the child endangerment conviction of Waylynn Marie Howard should be reversed, however, the high court splintered on the reasoning, with three justices filing concurring decisions and one dissenting.