Legal Opinion

Mace v. Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 17, 1998PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVANAUGH, Judge:

We are presently obliged to embark upon the murky waters of Pennsylvania contractual indemnification law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 8, 1992, plaintiff Mace was at an A-Plus Mini-Market in Philadelphia. He was severely battered with a baseball bat by Perry, an employee of the store. Perry was employed by Barqawi who possessed and operated the market under lease from Atlantic.1 Thus, we have a lawsuit by a victim against the perpetrator employee, the operator-employer, and owner of a retail enterprise.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Mace sued the three defendants and Atlantic…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Perry v. PayneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Bester v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. MATX, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. McAdoo Borough v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. MacE v. Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Hailey, L. v. Baribault, J.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2020
  3. MacE v. Atlantic Refining & Marketing Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Vasaturo v. Nason & Cullen Inc., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API