Legal Opinion

Petrongola v. Comcast-Spectacor, L.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 2001PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant 1 , Perry Petrongola, asks us to determine whether the trial court erred in finding Appellees, as owners and operators of a hockey arena, owed “no duty” to protect Appellant from an errant puck that struck him in the mouth during the course of a hockey game. In addition, we must determine if a question exists as to whether Appellees assumed a duty to protect Appellant from that errant puck. Finally, Appellant asks us to decide whether the trial court improperly relied on the “assumption of the risk” defense in granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, and…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Martin v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Jones v. Three Rivers Management Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Okkerse v. HoweSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Salerno v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star ExpressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Campisi v. Acme Markets Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Cooper v. Frankford Health Care System, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. MONTAGAZZI v. CrisciSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. City of Wilkes-Barre v. KAMINSKI BROTHERSCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Barillari v. SKI Shawnee, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2013

14 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