Opinion

Hamil v. Bashline

243 Pa. Super. 227
364 A.2d 1366
1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2832

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: Sep 27, 1976
Status: Published
Author: Spaeth
On the bench: Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
Cited by: 12 cases

Vacated by Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256 (1978)

adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323

How later courts described this case

adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SPAETH, Judge

(dissenting):

As I read their respective opinions, Judge Hoffman and Judge Cercone agree on the law of proximate cause. On this, I am with them both. I join Judge Cercone in dissent because I think the lower court’s charge was erroneous.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.