Legal Opinion

Sorensen v. Quaker City Poster Advertising Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 19, 1925No. Appeal, 302PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephabt,

Plaintiff was struck by a piece of tin and wood blown from defendant’s sign, located a few feet from the public highway. Plaintiff charged negligent construction; on this issue he sued and recovered damages.

There was testimony of witnesses who, though not expert sign builders, were competent to testify as to whether or not the sign was properly constructed, from which the jury could find improper construction. The weight and credibility of this evidence were for the jury. The court below would have been clearly in error to have excluded it. Defendant showed the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Reel v. ElderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
  2. Fitzpatrick v. PenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Thatcher v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  4. Shaughnessy v. Director General of RailroadsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Duffy v. York Haven Water & Power Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Evans v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. McCarthy v. FerenceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  3. King v. Darlington Brick & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Fox v. Keystone Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  5. Price v. New Castle Refractories Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API