Legal Opinion · Dissent

Braden v. Pittsburgh

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 8, 1940No. Appeals, 93 and 94Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion

by Stadteeld, J.,

It is my opinion that the judgment of the court below should be reversed. To affirm this judgment is to take the position that under the circumstances of this case, all facts and inferences of facts reasonably deducible therefrom being considered most favorably for plaintiffs, the minor plaintiff is to be adjudged guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, or the city is to be adjudged free from negligence as a matter of law. The majority of this court are “unable to say that sixteen hours with fewer than three hours of daylight was sufficient…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kehler v. Schwenk, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County1891
  2. Neidlinger v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. Beck v. HoodSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  4. Brinkos Et Ux. v. McKeesport CitySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API