Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. Dorney Park Coaster Co.

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided March 17, 1948No. 9480Published

1DissentO’Connell, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority of this court that the Pennsylvania incontrovertible facts rule does not bar recovery in the case sub judice. Likewise, I agree that in Pennsylvania a park owner is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees. I believe, however, that the facts as found by the jury at the trial of the instant case neither require nor warrant the conclusion that, as a matter of law, the defendant herein met the test of reasonable inspection under the circumstances. I should like to analyze the cases on which my brethren rely in reaching the result set forth in their maj ority opinion.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Durning v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Bechtel v. Franklin Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Hunter v. Hotel Sylvania Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Freeguard v. BinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936

4 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