Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.

193 A.3d 343

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 31, 2018

DocketNo. 127 WAL 2018; No. 128 WAL 2018

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 A.3d 343 (Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 193 A.3d 343 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court misapprehend basic fundamentals of tort law by holding that the failure to give a per se negligence charge where the jury still found [Petitioner] to be negligent even without the benefit of such charge was somehow relevant to the apportionment of factual cause?

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

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court misapprehend basic fundamentals of tort law by holding that the failure to give a per se negligence charge where the jury still found [Petitioner] to be negligent even without the benefit of such charge was somehow relevant to the apportionment of factual cause?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.3d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grove-v-port-auth-of-allegheny-cnty-pa-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack