Engstrom v. Huntley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Linn,
Plaintiff was injured by the negligent operation of an amusement device called Tilt-a-Whirl in the amusement park known as Conneaut Lake Park, which was owned and operated by the Hotel Conneaut, Inc., defendant-appellee. She sued the corporation, Charles Huntley and C. D. Clark, and put in evidence sufficient to support a finding that her injury resulted from negligent operation. The defendants elected to put in no evidence. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff against all three defendants. The appellee moved for judgment n. o. v. for lack of evidence…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Plummer v. DillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Haugh v. Harris Bros. Amusement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Wodnik v. Luna Park Amusement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
- Frear v. Manchester Traction, Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
- Turgeon v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Glass v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- McCordic v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Dockery Ex Rel. Pullen v. World of Mirth Shows, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Bekelja v. James E. Strates Shows, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Sergermeister v. Recreation Corp. of America, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.