Legal Opinion

Roche v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 20, 2005PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBender, J.

¶ 1 Timothy and Kim Roche 1 appeal from the orders entering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Ugly Ducking Car Sales, Inc., Ugly Ducking Corporation (collectively, “Ugly Duckling”), and Garden Spot Equipment Auction, Inc., t/a Garden Spot Auto Auction (“Garden Spot”). Plaintiff, a police officer, sustained serious injuries when he was hit by a car owned by Ugly Duckling and stolen by juveniles from the property of Garden Spot where it had been parked. The trial court concluded that the defen dants did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiff. We affirm.

¶ 2 The trial court set forth the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Feld v. MerriamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Morena v. South Hills Health SystemSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Ford v. JeffriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Matharu v. MuirSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Craig v. Amateur Softball Ass'n of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Gresik v. PA Partners, L.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Moranko, F. v. Downs RacingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. Kote, S. v. The Bank of New YorkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

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