Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. Putter

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 11, 2003Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBender, J.

111 I join the Majority’s decision in all parts except for one. The Majority concludes that, “Unlike the evidence with respect to the hip injury, the evidence presented with respect to the wrist and shoulder injuries was not uncontradicted with respect to whether the accident was a substantial factor in causing the wrist and shoulder injuries.” Majority Slip Opinion at 9. I write separately to distance myself from this statement as I conclude that it is contrary to the record. However, I agree with the Majority’s conclusion that the Plaintiffs waived the wrist and shoulder claims due to their…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gorski v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Andrews v. JacksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Majczyk v. OeschSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Mano v. MaddenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Commonwealth v. McCormickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API