Jastrzembski v. General Motors Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
CLARY, District Judge.
The matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after the Court directed a verdict for defendant.
Accepting plaintiff’s testimony in its most favorable light, as I am required to do in considering this motion, the facts were: On February 6, 1949, plaintiff purchased a new Pontiac automobile equipped with hydramatic transmission. The automobile had been designed and manufactured by the defendant. On July 5, 1949, the plaintiff drove the Pontiac onto a driveway leading to a parking lot. He placed the hydramatic gearshift in the neutral position, but he…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ebbert v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Nock v. Coca Cola Bot. Wks. Pgh.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
- Rozumailski v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Henderson v. National Drug Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Dillon v. William S. Scull Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- LeBlanc v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1963
- Kelly v. Otis Elevator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Forest Young v. Willys Motors, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1959