Legal Opinion

Swalina v. Pisalski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 27, 1937No. Appeals 199 and 200PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

These appeals are governed in principle by the cases of Maltz v. Carter, 311 Pa. 550, 166 A. 852, and Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1, 151 A. 678, which hold that where an automobile, which is being driven on a dry road in daylight, or on a clear moonlight night, without congestion of traffic, suddenly swerves from the road and runs into a pole alongside the road, the occurrence is so unusual and out of the normal as to call for an explanation from the driver-; and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation the jury may infer that the accident arose from a want of due care.

The facts…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Knox v. SimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Maltz v. CarterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Morgan v. Duquesne BoroughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  4. Carroll v. HannanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. McAmbley v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Boyle v. WardCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
  2. Morgan, Admx. v. PetersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  3. Salemmo v. DolanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  4. O'Hagan v. ByronSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
  5. Hoover, for Use v. PaterniSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

2 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