Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Westerman. v. Stout

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1975No. Appeals, Nos. 855 to 858Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by

Cercone, J.:

I agree with the majority’s opinion in all respects, except insofar as it supports the jury’s finding that Mrs. Stout acted negligently in responding to a sudden emergency not of her creation. Despite a cogent and well-written opinion by Judge Bodley in the court below, I agree with Mrs. Stout’s contention that she should be found not negligent as a matter of law. I would, therefore, reverse and remand for a trial limited solely to the question of the damages suffered by Mrs. Stout in the instant case.

The scope of our inquiry into jury verdicts…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Heffernan v. RosserSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Tuite v. UNION PACIFIC STAGESOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Lithgow v. LithgowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Coleman v. ByrnesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1950
  5. Master v. Goldstein's Fruit & Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941

6 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