Legal Opinion

Sprenkel v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 27, 1995No. 00709PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

Appellants Susan E. Sprenkel and Robert C. Sprenkel brought this action to recover damages for injuries suffered by Susan Sprenkel when her automobile collided with a freight car belonging to appellee Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”). The trial court sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by appellee, and dismissed appellants’ lawsuit. We determine that the “Occupied Crossing Rule” survives to shield the defendant railroad from liability in this negligence action.

In this appeal from the dismissal of an action based on preliminary objections, we…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Dunn v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. FabinyiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Wilson v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. SCARBOROUGH BY SCARBOROUGH v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. SCARBOROUGH BY SCARBOROUGH v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Harvey, S. v. Palumbo, G.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. LOPEZ v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2021
  5. Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013

2 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