Legal Opinion

Poulos v. Brady

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 20, 1950No. Appeal, 92PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Dithrich, J.,

The record in this case presents a rather anomalous situation. Plaintiff recovered a verdict for damages sustained as a result of having been attacked and bitten by a dog owned by defendant, the proprietress of a taproom. Although the suit was based and tried by plaintiff on the legal principle of the care which must be exercised by an innkeeper to see that his patrons or guests are protected from injury, it was defended in the court below, and argued here, as though it had been predicated on the theory that defendant harbored a vicious dog with knowledge of its vicious…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Voitasefski v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Harman Et Ux. v. ChambersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  3. Andrews v. Smith Et Ux.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Rommel v. SchambacherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887
  5. Lyttle v. DennySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. D'ERRICO v. DeFazioSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Howard v. Zaney BarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
  3. Gajkowski v. International Brotherhood of TeamstersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Cross v. LabodaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. Penner v. NapolitanoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1956

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