Hoffman v. Sun Pipe Line Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
This appeal arises from the order dated May 22, 1989, granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether their injuries were foreseeable to appellee. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the trial court that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; we therefore affirm the order below.
On November 21, 1982, while installing underground cable, Tri-state Telecommunications, Inc., punctured a gas pipeline owned by…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Mazzagatti v. Everingham by EveringhamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Hedlund Manufacturing Co. v. Weiser, Stapler & SpivakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Alumni Ass'n v. SullivanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- Weiss v. Keystone MacK Sales, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- In Re Tmi. General Public Utilities Corp. Metropolitan Edison Company Jersey Central Power & Light Co. Pennsylvania Electric Co. Babcock & Wilcox Company McDermott Incorporated Ue & C Catalytic, Inc. (Raytheon) Burns & Roe Enterprises Dresser IndustriesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- J.E.J. v. Tri-County Big Bros./Big Sisters, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Campo v. St. Luke's HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Pittsburgh National Bank v. PerrSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- In Re: TMICourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.