Keck v. Doughman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Pugh v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Trentacost v. BrusselSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Casey v. GeigerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Eck v. Powermatic HoudailleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Asper v. HaffleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Palange v. Philadelphia Law Dept.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Zitney v. Appalachian Timber Products, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Melita Miller v. Allan A. ChristianCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Bang v. Philadelphia Zoo, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1994
- Bosco v. Joseph, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.