Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

882 A.2d 1003, 584 Pa. 160, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1866
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 1, 2005·No. Petition 640 WAL 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*161 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby granted, limited to the following issues:

1. Whether guidance by the Supreme Court is necessary because the scope of a construction manager’s duty to a contractor’s employee is an issue of first impression in the Commonwealth?
3. Whether the Commonwealth Court erroneously held that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission had a common law duty to warn the decedent’s employer of any obvious conditions created by the general contractor?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission’s Application for Leave to File Post-Submission Communication is denied as moot.

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

Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 882 A.2d 1003, 584 Pa. 160, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 1866 (Pa. 2005).

882 A.2d 1003 (Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
911 A.2d 1264 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)