Legal Opinion

MacK v. Reading Company

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 22, 1954No. Appeal, 58PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

The facts of this accident constitute such a typical situation for the application of the rule of evidence commonly known as the doctrine of “exclusive control” that the case might well serve as a classical example of the need and use of that doctrine for the ascertainment of liability.

One Everly was operating a tractor-trailer in the nighttime along II. S. Route 1 near Parkland, Pennsylvania, when a freight train passed in the opposite direction along a track of the Reading Company, this track being located at that point on an embankment about 10 or…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Zahniser v. Pennsylvania Torpedo Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  3. Knox v. SimmermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. MacDonald v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Pope v. Reading CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Flagiello v. Pennsylvania HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Brandon v. Peoples Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Davies v. McDowell National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Haddon v. LotitoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  5. Izzi v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

30 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