Legal Opinion

Keck v. Doughman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1990No. 00572PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This appeal is from a judgment below, in which appellant, Mary L. Keck, sought to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in a fall on the property of her landlords, Carl and Betty Doughman. The case was tried on theories of negligence and an implied warranty of habitability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees, finding that they were 42% negligent, while appellant was 58% contributorily negligent. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred because it instructed the jury in accordance with § 342 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977). Appellant…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pugh v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Trentacost v. BrusselSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  3. Casey v. GeigerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Eck v. Powermatic HoudailleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Asper v. HaffleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Palange v. Philadelphia Law Dept.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Zitney v. Appalachian Timber Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  3. Melita Miller v. Allan A. ChristianCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  4. Bang v. Philadelphia Zoo, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1994
  5. Bosco v. Joseph, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County2000

3 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