Legal Opinion

Hardy v. Southland Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 28, 1994No. 2492PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for removal of non-suit and granting of a new trial. Appellant raises one issue, whether the court erred in granting non-suit on the basis of the assumption of the risk defense. We reverse and remand.

Appellant brought suit to recover damages for an injury sustained at a 7-Eleven store owned by appellees. According to appellant’s testimony she entered appellees’ store on a day it had been raining, stepped onto a floor mat located just inside the doorway and, on her first step off the mat, fell on' the linoleum floor.…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Carrender v. FittererSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Fish v. GosnellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bullman v. GiuntoliSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Staub v. Toy Factory, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Struble v. Valley Forge Military AcademySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Valentino v. Philadelphia Triathlon, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Frey v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

13 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