Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

895 A.2d 526, 586 Pa. 477, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 338

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Read the opinion of the Court — 589 Pa. 402 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 29, 2006·No. No. 350 EAL 2005·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of March 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The parties are directed to address the following issue:

[478]*478Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision that a door closing mechanism on a train is a “part and appurtenance” within the meaning of the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) in determining strict liability for an injury sustained by a railroad employee?

Justice BALDWIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of March 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The parties are directed to address the following issue:

Justice BALDWIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 895 A.2d 526, 586 Pa. 477, 2006 Pa. LEXIS 338 (Pa. 2006).

Pincite

895 A.2d 526 (Bolden v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.