Legal Opinion

Subasky v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 17, 1947No. Appeals, 83 and 84PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

In this trespass action for damages resulting from injuries to the wife, the jury found for both plaintiffs. These appeals question the propriety of the entry of judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant.

There is little dispute as to the facts. About 6 P. M. on March 30,1945, plaintiffs were marketing together in defendant’s store in Wilmerding as had been their weekly custom for several years. They were familiar with the store both in its physical aspects and the self-service method of its operation. They had made some purchases of supplies which were placed in a wire…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bloomer v. SnellenburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  2. Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  3. Walker v. Broad & Walnut Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Burckhalter v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Ziegler v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Young v. PriceHawaii Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Johnson v. RulonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  3. Yarkosky v. the Caldwell Store, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Johnson v. RULONSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. Wooley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1960

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