Legal Opinion

Haddon v. Lotito

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 4, 1960No. Appeals, 106, 107 and 108PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

The plaintiffs, Sarah Haddon, James Haddon and Andrew Brunnet, were injured while attending and witnessing a public fireworks’ display at a public picnic-park on July 4, 1956. An action in trespass against the defendant, producer of the exhibition, resulted at trial in the entry of a compulsory nonsuit which the lower court en banc refused to remove. The correctness of this ruling is now before this Court on appeal.

It is well established that a compulsory nonsuit should be entered only in a very clear case and that the suing party or parties must be given the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Federoff Et Ux. v. Harrison Const. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Schentzel v. Philadelphia National League ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  3. Gift v. PalmerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  4. MacK v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  5. Cope v. C. B. Walton Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1911

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Hader v. Coplay Cement Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Norman I. Suchomajcz, Administrator of the Estate of Norman Suchomajcz, a Minor v. Hummel Chemical Company, Newark, New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  3. Pullen v. WestSupreme Court of Kansas · 2004
  4. Hennigan v. Atlantic Refining CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
  5. McSparran v. HaniganDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1963

30 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