Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc.

114 A.3d 831, 631 Pa. 600

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 14, 2015

Docket582 EAL 2014 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.3d 831 (Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc.) 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

Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc., 114 A.3d 831, 631 Pa. 600 (Pa. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues *601 set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) In the face of the trial court’s cumulative review of, and conclusion that the record evidence of PPL’s operative control of the contractor’s work was sufficient to allow the issue of PPL’s liability to be presented to the jury, does the majority of the Superior Court panel conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. and § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts?

(2) Did the majority of the Superior Court panel err in adding an element of proof for imposing liability on a property owner under § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that was not contained in and is in conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. ?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues *601 set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) In the face of the trial court’s cumulative review of, and conclusion that the record evidence of PPL’s operative control of the contractor’s work was sufficient to allow the issue of PPL’s liability to be presented to the jury, does the majority of the Superior Court panel conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. and § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts?

(2) Did the majority of the Superior Court panel err in adding an element of proof for imposing liability on a property owner under § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that was not contained in and is in conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. ?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.3d 831, 631 Pa. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nertavich-v-ppl-electric-utilities-kta-kta-tator-inc-pa-2015.