Legal Opinion

Bowman v. Sears, Roebuck & Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 22, 1976No. 1644PublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This appeal is from the order of the lower court granting defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant 1 contends that the decision was improper because a genuine issue of fact exists and, under current case law, her claim should reach the jury. We agree that appellee’s motion for summary judgment was improperly granted, and therefore, reverse the lower court’s order.

Appellant, her two adult daughters and two grandchildren were shopping in appellee’s department store in Glen Riddle, Delaware County, on March 6, 1974. Appellant alleges in her complaint filed on…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  3. Husak v. Berkel, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Bosley v. AndrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  5. Prince v. PavoniSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Standard Pump-Aldrich DivisionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Rossi v. Pennsylvania State UniversitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Mattia v. Employers Mutual CompaniesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Acker v. PalenaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

52 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