Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Turner v. SMITH

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 1975No. Appeal, 46Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Cer-cone, J.:

Upon consideration of the court’s charge in full, and in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not believe that the lower court’s reference to “assured-clear-distance-ahead” constituted a charge thereon. On the other hand, I do agree that the court’s refusal to charge on reckless driving was error. Therefore, for the reasons which follow, I would affirm the judgments entered in favor of the passengers against the drivers of the two vehicles in question, Terry Lake and Charles Smith. However, I would reverse and remand for a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Fleischman v. ReadingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Action Industries, Inc. v. WiedemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Stark v. Fullerton Trucking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Gaber Et Ux. v. WeinbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. Rich v. Petersen Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947

8 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