Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.

193 A.3d 343

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 31, 2018·No. No. 127 WAL 2018; No. 128 WAL 2018·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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?

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

Pincite

193 A.3d 343 (Grove v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related