Legal Opinion
Gloster v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 10, 1963No. Civ. A. 61-640PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROSENBERG, District Judge.
This is an action under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Acts. A motion now seeks to amend the original complaint by adding new aver-ments of fact and a new party defendant. This will be allowed in part and disallowed in part.
The original complaint was filed in this Court on October 24, 1961. It avers that the deceased was employed by the Pullman Company, and while employed as a sleeping car porter in one of its trains, a fire broke out on October 3, 1961. The deceased engaged in the operation of extinguishing the fire and while doing so, suffered burns…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Robinson v. Waterman S. S. Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1947
- Jones v. New York Cent. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1950
3Cited by28 opinions
- Perez v. Paramount Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Joan Mayes v. At & T Information Systems, Inc. Communication Workers of America, Local 6507Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- Nett v. BellucciMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2002
- Longo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
- Derdiarian v. Futterman Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.