Case law

Heinrich v. Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital

436 Pa. Super. 465 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 1994

George and Pat Stock under the protection of immunity. … Immunity is clearly provided to those who report under the Law: § 6318.

Warren City Lines, Inc. v. United Refining Co.

220 Pa. Super. 308 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1971

Bradstreet, supra, p. 169 ); (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity (Dilks v. Flohr Chevrolet, supra, p. 436 ).” … Schroeder clearly establishes that the grant of summary judgment in the instant case was error.

Lehnig v. Felton

278 Pa. Super. 12 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 16, 1980

caused by a dangerous condition of highways under the jurisdiction of Commonwealth agencies created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elements, except that the claimant to recover must establish … Appellant Glasgow’s claim is for property damage to its vehicle occasioned in the accident and is clearly barred by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5111(b)(5), supra, since it is an action brought pursuant to Section 5110(a)(5) (pertaining

Pellegrino Food Products Co. v. Valley Voice

2005 Pa. Super. 191 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 23, 2005

“However, this qualified immunity is forfeited if the publisher steps out of the scope of the privilege or abuses the ‘occasion.’ This can be done by exaggerated additions, or embellishments to the account.” … Appellants were advised of this factor prior to filing the first complaint but proceeded anyway, establishing that their conduct was vexatious.

Integrated Project Services v. HMS Interiors, Inc.

2007 Pa. Super. 246 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 16, 2007

Accordingly, indemnification provisions are given effect only when clearly and explicitly stated in the contract between two parties. Greer v. … “Case law has established that the indemnity provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act must be construed strictly, and general indemnity language such as ‘any or all’ or ‘any nature whatsoever’ is insufficient.”

O'Donnell v. R.M. Shoemaker & Co.

2003 Pa. Super. 42 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2003

. ¶ 2 “In our review of a case decided on summary judgment, a trial court’s order granting summary judgment will not be reversed unless it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion … It is unreasonable to conclude that Fluidics would be immune from tort liability as to Mr. O’Donnell, but that Fluidies’s employees, for whom Fluidics is responsible, are not so immune.

Com. v. Hunt, B.

220 A.3d 582 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 2019

It is not clear that Bass Pallets qualifies as an “individual” under § 11.103 (and, therefore, as a “direct victim”). … It seems unlikely that Bass Pallets would be able to establish a “loss of earnings” for the purposes of this definition.

Commonwealth v. Swinehart

434 Pa. Super. 123 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 24, 1994

In light of the aforesaid decisions, we hold that appellant’s constitutional challenge to the legality of use immunity clearly fails. … Our Legislature and our Supreme Court have provided that only use immunity is available to a witness under Pennsylvania law. We are not prepared to deviate from this established principle.

Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc.

2001 Pa. Super. 16 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2001

The Pennsylvania legislature, in enacting the Act, specified its intent was “to establish and maintain an effective and efficient emergency medical services system which is accessible on a uniform basis to all Pennsylvania … Clearly, the Act was designed for and aimed at the administration of emergency services by trained and licensed professionals.

Com. v. Lehman, R.

278 A.3d 321 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 23, 2022

However, we affirmed Lehman’s judgment of sentence, holding that the Act did not afford him immunity because the crime of possession of contraband by an inmate was not an enumerated offense. See Commonwealth v. … As a community corrections center, Renewal indisputably qualifies as a correctional institution. See 61 Pa.C.S. § 5001.

Braun v. Target Corp.

2009 Pa. Super. 206 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2009

JMB affirms it established each prong of the McDonald test and was entitled to statutory employer immunity. … In those situations, the general contractor who meets the five-part McDonald test qualifies as the statutory employer of the subcontractor’s employee, and is immune from suit by that employee. Id.

Commonwealth v. Boyd

2013 Pa. Super. 234 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 2013

Therefore, Boyd’s argument continues, his claim is one that implicates the legality of the sentence and is therefore immune to waiver. … Specifically, Boyd argues that the weight of the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the person who shot the victim. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10.

Weible, R. v. Wells, W.

2017 Pa. Super. 49 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2017

As Torch clearly stated, local governments have immunity from a claim of adverse possession when the land in question is devoted to public use. Nelson v. Dibble, 353 Pa.Super. 537 , 10 A.2d 792 , 794 (1986). … Thus, finding that the Wellses established that they adversely possessed the land from the latter dates, see infra pp. 1223-26, this issue is moot. .

Fewell v. Besner

444 Pa. Super. 559 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1995

Clearly, Dr. Besner’s interest was to carry out his *568 duties under the CPSL and prevent any further abuse. The express purpose of the CPSL would have been breached if Dr. Besner had not reported the incident. … The MHPA establishes procedures for involuntary treatment and hospitalization of mentally ill persons. 50 Pa.S.A. §§ 7103-7503. 5 .

Greenberg, M. v. McGraw, N.

2017 Pa. Super. 136 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 5, 2017

An important element which must be established before this immunity can apply, however, is whether or not the actions (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 14 - J-A05022-17 was sued … Clearly such statements fit squarely within the absolute privilege….”).

First Lehigh Bank v. Cowen

700 A.2d 498 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 1997

Thus, there exists a presumptively qualified privilege under the fair report rule. Once the existence of the privilege is established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish an abuse of that privilege. Id. … While it is true that a newspaper can forfeit its conditional privilege by failing to clearly state that the allegations of the complaint were simply unproven allegations and not established facts, Oweida, supra, at 130 ,

Com. v. Belgrave, J.

307 A.3d 1240 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 28, 2023

the Commonwealth did not first establish that the victim was conscious. … Looking at factor 5, clearly there was a change in strategy at the time of trial.

Allen v. Montgomery Hospital

447 Pa. Super. 158 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 19, 1995

set forth in 50 P.S. § 7102 as follows: It is the policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to seek to assure the availability of adequate treatment to persons who are mentally ill, and it is the purpose of this act to establish … Further, we stated that under the MHPA, the individuals who would make decisions that qualify for immunity under the act would be trained in the field of mental health. Id.

FLISEK v. Star Fireworks, Inc.

220 Pa. Super. 350 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 1971

Allentown Housing Authority, supra, indicates quite clearly that the liability of a municipality does not turn on the niceties of title, but instead turns on whether the municipality had assumed the duty to supervise and … Such circumstances raise the question whether such differences as those described mount arbitrary and unreasonable distinctions incompatible with the constitutional standard established by the Equal Protection Clause of the

Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc.

2008 Pa. Super. 204 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 4, 2008

We will reverse the resulting order only where it is established that the court committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. Estate of Higgins ex rel. Higgins v. Washington Mut. Fire Ins. … the intent of the parties; (3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and (4) the burden of establishing immunity is upon the party invoking