Legal Opinion

Engstrom v. Huntley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 12, 1942No. Appeal, 70PublishedCited by 14 opinions

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

  1. Plummer v. DillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
  2. Haugh v. Harris Bros. Amusement Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Wodnik v. Luna Park Amusement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Frear v. Manchester Traction, Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
  5. Turgeon v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1911

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Glass v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. McCordic v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Dockery Ex Rel. Pullen v. World of Mirth Shows, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Bekelja v. James E. Strates Shows, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Sergermeister v. Recreation Corp. of America, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975

9 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