Legal Opinion

Hudson v. Shoemaker

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided October 21, 1992No. 6871Published

1Opinion of the Court

HERRON, J.,

Plaintiff Lorraine Hudson moved this court for summary judgment, asking the court to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to estop defendant Wendy Shoemaker from denying liability for Hudson’s injuries. Movant asks this court to attach collateral estoppel effect to the finding of an arbitration panel that Shoemaker was 100 percent at fault in causing the automobile accident during which Hudson was injured.

BACKGROUND

On or about February 17, 1991, automobiles driven by Shoemaker and Wilma Rodriguez collided. Each automobile bore a passenger. Hudson, Shoemaker’s passenger, filed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Day v. Volkswagenwerk AktiengesellschaftSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Grant v. GAF Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Hebden v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  4. In Re Estate of R. L. L.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. OTTAVIANO v. SEPTASuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API