Legal Opinion

Konchar v. Cebular

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 23, 1939No. Appeal, 19PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

Appellant borrowed a motorcycle from Peter Saltisiak. Peter, desiring not to lend the motorcycle, stated that there was not much gas in it, but upon appellant’s offer to supply the gasoline, Peter let him have the motorcycle. He drove to a gasoline station and ordered a gallon of gas. Before appellee inserted the nozzle of the hose the motor was shut off but appellant remained astride the machine. Appellee proceeded to fill the order but when three-quarters of a gallon was placed in the tank the gasoline overflowed, running on the hot cylinders. The gasoline exploded into flames…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fredericks v. Atlantic Refining Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Coolbroth v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
  3. Young v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Kuntz v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
  5. Kennedy v. Rothrock Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Kuhns v. BruggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Stewart v. MottsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Summit Hotel Co. v. National Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Malitovsky v. Harshaw Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Reithof v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949

7 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