Palmosina v. Laidlaw Transit Co., Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
In this appeal, we are asked to correct a legislative oversight appearing in the initial draft of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 1 The trial court, applying literally the language of the statute and the substantive law of this Commonwealth, held that a pedestrian employee could effect a double recovery from the third party tortfeasor even though she had previously been paid benefits by her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. After careful review, we agree with the learned trial judge that the deficiency in the statute was for the legislature to correct.
On…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Masland v. BachmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Cartwright v. CartwrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Heckendorn v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Ducaji v. DennisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Pittsburgh Construction Co. v. GriffithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois v. Joseph N. DibartoloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Hagans v. Constitution State Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Stroback v. CamaioniSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Schroeder v. SchraderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.