Legal Opinion

Kilgallen v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 1930No. Appeal, 201PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Schaeeer,

Plaintiff was employed by a firm of contractors engaged in building a sewer on Main Street in the Borough of Darby. His duty required him to keep watch at night over the red warning lanterns which were placed along the open trench to see that they were lighted. The defendant maintains two lines of track in the bed of Main Street, the south one for eastbound cars and the north one for westbound. The trench was dug on the north side of the westbound track about 18 inches from the north rail and the lanterns were placed on boards laid across the excavation at about…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Zandt v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  2. Bardis v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  3. Boyle v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  5. Magyar v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dopler v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Phillips v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  3. Copertino v. ChrobakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Bass v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Lieberman v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931

6 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