Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hucaluk v. Clyde Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 28, 1954No. Appeals, Nos. 3 and 4Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Musmanno :

The defendants in this case were not running an elevator; they were operating a guillotine. They provided for a nice, convenient hole in the elevator shaft, just big enough for a head to fit into so that a descending elevator could decapitate, crush or mangle the *177mortal calling for transportation. The head-hole was allowed, and this method of elevator-calling permitted, in violation of law, in defiance of safety regulations, and in opposition to every rule of care and precaution owing by landlords to tenants of a building.

The Clyde Building, in which…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kasanovich v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  2. McCracken v. Curwensville BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Bisson v. John B. Kelly, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  4. Jones v. American Caramel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  5. Ferry v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

3 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