Legal Opinion

Kelly Et Ux. v. Yount

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 21, 1939No. Appeals, 102 and 103PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

In each of these appeals from judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, defendant contends that he is entitled to judgment non obstante veredicto on the ground that there is no evidence of negligence chargeable to defendant.

There is no dispute as to the facts. Defendant is a practicing physician with offices in the Plymouth Building, University Place, in Pittsburgh. On December 1, 1933, plaintiff, Mrs. Kelly, took her young son to defendant’s offices for an examination and was directed to a waiting room adjoining defendant’s x-ray room in the basement of the building. In the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  2. Knox v. SimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  3. Moon v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
  4. Brennan v. Merchant & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  5. Luckett v. ReighardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Powell v. RisserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. Shuman Estate v. WeberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  3. Dillon v. William S. Scull Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  4. Christman v. SegalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Clark v. Glosser Bros. Department Stores, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

11 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