Legal Opinion

Bartkewich v. BILLINGER

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 12, 1968No. Appeal, 166PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

This case comes to us after appellee received a jury verdict. Appellant appealed from the denial of its motions for a new trial and for a judgment n.o.v.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, indicates that appellee, an experienced glass factory worker, was helping to operate a machine built for appellee’s employer by appellant. The machine was built to specifications requested by the employer although appellant retained the right and discretion to install any necessary safety devices. The machine was used to break glass and stack glass…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Webb v. ZernSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Campo v. ScofieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1950
  3. Wright v. Massey-Harris, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1966
  4. Jacob Blitzstein v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
  5. Gloria L. Messina, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits Which Were of Joseph C. Messina, Deceased v. Clark Equipment CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
  3. Dyson v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Hammond, Ruth L., Administratrix of the Estate of James B. Hammond, Sr., and Ruth L. Hammond, in Her Own Right v. International Harvester Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
  5. AUBURN MACH. WORKS, CO., INC. v. JonesSupreme Court of Florida · 1979

60 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