Brown v. Dorney Park Coaster Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
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
- Durning v. HymanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Bechtel v. Franklin Trust Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Hunter v. Hotel Sylvania Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Freeguard v. BinghamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.