Ross v. Mayflower Drug Stores, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
The court below refused to enter judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Defendant appeals assigning the refusal as error.
The case is a very close one. We have not been convinced, however, that it should have been determined by the court as a matter of law.
About 8 o’clock on a December night, the minor plaintiff, in leaving defendant’s store, in which she had been a customer, fell on the icy step leading to the pavement and was injured. There can be no question about the icy condition of the step; three other persons had fallen on it during the afternoon:…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Markman v. Fred P. Bell Stores Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Walker v. Broad & Walnut Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Bilger v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Fisher v. Pomeroy's, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Ziegler v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Walker v. Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948
- Jerominski v. Fowler, Dick & WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Flora v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Weismiller Et Vir. v. FarrellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Stewart Et Vir v. PittsburghSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.