Morris v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
■Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
Our Courts have repeatedly said — up to this time— that a person who sees or who should see an obviously dangerous- condition and intentionally tempts it when such action is: unnecessary, is. guilty of contributory negligence as a matter .of law: Szuwalla v. Reading Co., 330 Pa. 526, 528, 199 At 177; Boyle v. Mahanoy City, 187 Pa. 1, 11, 40 A. 1092; Chernuka v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 320 Pa. 193, 195, 182 A. 543; Dooley v. Charleroi Borough, 328. Pa. 57, 60, 195 A. 6; Joseph v. Pitts. & W. V. Ry., 294 Pa. 315, 320, 144 A. 139; Neal *473v. Buffalo,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boyle v. Borough of Mahanoy CitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Joseph v. Pitts. & W. v. Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Druding v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Forks Township v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
- Dooley v. Charleroi BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.