Urban Redevelopment Authority v. Noralco Corp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in concluding that the parties’ contract required appellant to indemnify appellee for a loss resulting from appellee’s negligence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the entry of judgment n. o. v. in favor of appellee.
Appellee, Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA), owns a tract of land in the East Liberty section of Pittsburgh. Appellant, Noralco Corporation (Noralco), is engaged in demolition work. In 1965, the URA and Noralco entered into a contract whereby Noralco agreed to perform demolition and site clearance…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Dilks v. Flohr ChevroletSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Westinghouse Electric Co. v. Murphy, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Zimmer v. Mitchell and NessSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Clement v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- East Texas Motor Freight, Diamond Division v. LloydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- City of Wilkes-Barre v. KAMINSKI BROTHERSCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Deskiewicz v. Zenith Radio Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- DiPietro v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.