Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Okkerse v. Howe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 24, 1991No. 02186Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOlszewski, Judge

I concur in the portion of the majority opinion which holds that appellant cannot base a cause of action on the failure to erect a stop sign, as appellee is prohibited from placing such a sign on Avon Road by statute. See, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6125(a). I cannot agree with the portion of the majority opinion which affirms the summary judgment holding that *618appellee had no duty to control the vegetation on another’s property. Accordingly, I must dissent.

The majority correctly states the law as to the duty of a property owner to maintain a private roadway. In the absence of an agreement to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Harvey v. HansenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Kearns v. Rollins Outdoor Advertising, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Oswald v. HausmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Mscisz v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

3 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