Legal Opinion

Dayen Et Vir v. Penn Bus Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 30, 1949No. Appeals, 216, 217 and 218PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Patterson,

Mary H. Dayen and Philip Dayen, husband and wife, instituted this action in trespass against Penn Bus Company to recover damages for injuries sustained by the wife when the bus on which she Avas riding as a passenger collided Avith a truck operated by Edgar Davis, who was brought upon the record as additional defendant. The jury returned verdicts for plaintiffs against Penn Bus Company aggregating $4,100 and found in favor of the additional defendant. Motions for new trial were denied and judgments Avere entered in accordance with the a-erdiets. These appeals…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Maio v. FahsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. McCormick Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Schall v. Penn Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Archer Et Vir v. Pittsburgh Rwys. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Steckler v. LutySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Berg v. Reaction Motors DivisionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
  2. Connolly v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. McGowan v. Devonshire Hall ApartmentsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. MacDougall v. ChalmersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Martin v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950

7 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