Pollack v. SEPTA

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Pollack v. SEPTA

61 Pa. D. & C.2d 711, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 477

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedJuly 3, 1973

Docketno. 5366

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 Pa. D. & C.2d 711 (Pollack v. SEPTA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pollack v. SEPTA, 61 Pa. D. & C.2d 711, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 477 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

REIMEL, J.,

— Harry D. Pollack was attacked and pushed on the track at the Thirtieth Street Subway Station by three men on December 14, 1969. He was then taken to Presbyterian Hospital where he died. His administratrix brought action on December 4, 1970, and thereafter defendant filed an answer denying liability and setting forth new matter, contending that plaintiff failed to comply with the provision of Act of August 14, 1963, P. L. 984, 66 PS [712]*712§2036. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The requirements of the statute were not met and defendant was not responsible for unforeseeable and unpreventable criminal acts of third persons.

On May 31, 1973, an order was entered wherein defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

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

REIMEL, J.,

— Harry D. Pollack was attacked and pushed on the track at the Thirtieth Street Subway Station by three men on December 14, 1969. He was then taken to Presbyterian Hospital where he died. His administratrix brought action on December 4, 1970, and thereafter defendant filed an answer denying liability and setting forth new matter, contending that plaintiff failed to comply with the provision of Act of August 14, 1963, P. L. 984, 66 PS [712]*712§2036. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The requirements of the statute were not met and defendant was not responsible for unforeseeable and unpreventable criminal acts of third persons.

On May 31, 1973, an order was entered wherein defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Pa. D. & C.2d 711, 1973 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollack-v-septa-pactcomplphilad-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack