Legal Opinion

Houston v. Texaco, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 11, 1988No. 267, 277 and 359PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

The principal issues in this appeal are whether damages may be recovered for (1) emotional distress and (2) inconvenience and discomfort resulting from the contamination of well water negligently allowed to leak from the storage system of a neighboring gasoline service station. We conclude that recovery may be had for inconvenience and discomfort but that there can be no recovery for emotional distress in the absence of attending physical injury. Because the plaintiffs failed to plead a claim for inconvenience and discomfort, however, the jury should not have been permitted,…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Feld v. MerriamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Nina Michael v. Shiley, Inc. Hospital Products Group, Inc., (Formerly Howmedica, Inc.) Pfizer, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  2. Mest v. Cabot Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
  3. Love v. CramerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Burk v. Sage Products, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Smith v. GrabSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

43 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