Monday, October 3, 2016

School Buses

School buses
Dale G. Larrimore, Esquire
Larrimore & Farnish, LLP
www.larrimorefarnish.com

            Passing a school bus — do you know the rules? Another school year has started. Perhaps it is a good time for a refresher.
The rule that every driver should know is that you must stop whenever a school bus is stopped to allow children to board or leave the bus. That is the easy part. It becomes more difficult deciding exactly when stops are required and how far back you need to stop. When a school bus is stopped on the road with its red signal lights flashing and the side stop signal arms activated, the operator of any vehicle overtaking the bus or meeting it when coming in the opposite direction must stop at least ten feet before reaching the school bus and must remain stopped until the school children who have gotten off the bus have reached a place of safety.[1]  A motorist is not required to stop until the red flashers on the school bus have been activated, since a motorist cannot know whether it is stopped to discharge or receive school children without such notice.[2]  The concern, of course, is that a child may cut across all traffic lanes to board, or after leaving, the bus. The driver cannot proceed until the red lights quit flashing and every child going to or from the bus has reached a point of safety.
What if you are on a motorcycle or a bicycle? That counts. The key word here is vehicle. Both are considered to be vehicles under the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.
            Now here is the question that probably creates the most confusion for drivers. What do you do when the bus is approaching you from the opposite direction on a multi-lane roadway? When do you have to stop and when don’t you? It is important to recognize that the above rule does not apply to divided highways. So what is a divided highway?
Where there are “separate roadways,” a driver is not required to stop on meeting or passing a school bus with active red signals that is on a different roadway.[3] A “separate roadway” is defined in the Pennsylvania Code to be a highway that is divided into two or more roadways, with a physical barrier or clearly indicated dividing section between the roadways.[4] To qualify as a separate roadway, there must be a physical barrier or a clearly indicated dividing section separating the two halves. Physical barriers include a concrete median barrier, metal median barrier and non-mountable curbing. Clearly indicated dividing sections include concrete mountable curbs, trees, shrubs, rocks, boulders, a stream or grass. But mere pavement markings or “singing divisors” do not create separate roadways. (Yes, those rumble strips on the road are called singing divisors). Two painted double yellow lines separating the northbound lanes from the southbound lanes are not a physical barrier and the driver of a northbound vehicle can be convicted of passing a stop school bus that is in the southbound lane with the lights and stop signal arm activated.[5]
One might think that if you are not sure, you should just stop. However, where a school bus heading east on a four lane divided highway stopped to discharge children, a motorist who was driving in the westbound lanes was found to be negligent in stopping after his vehicle was then hit in the rear.[6]
What about school buses stopped at an intersection? The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection at which a school bus is stopped must stop his vehicle at that intersection until the flashing red signal lights are no longer actuated.
School buses, or actually their passengers, have special protection provided through the Vehicle Code, and violating the rules with regard to passing a school bus is considered a “serious traffic offense.”[7] A violation can mean a fine of $100, a 60-day suspension of driving privileges and five points on the driver's record.
The statute mandating that motorists stop no less than ten feet before reaching a stopped school bus with its red signal lights flashing and the side signal arm extended, has been very strictly interpreted to favor the children of our Commonwealth. Although a motorist is not required to stop unless the red flashers on the school bus are in operation, a driver cannot excuse a failure to stop by arguing that she could not see the flashing lights due to their angle of view or other obstruction.[8]
The operator of a school bus is empowered by the Vehicle Code to report to the police any motorist who passes a stopped school bus, and the police may then issue a citation based on such a report.[9] When a school bus driver initiates legal action against a motorist for passing a stopped school bus, the bus driver must do so by filing a signed, written report including information pertaining to the identity of the alleged violator, the license number, color and body type of the vehicle, and the time and location of the violation.[10] The report of the school bus operator must be filed with the citation issued by the police.[11]
            We commonly recognize that school buses are painted yellow, but the Vehicle Code actually only mandates that they be painted with a “uniform color scheme,” with the label “School Bus” on both the front and rear.[12] Under the Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania, a school bus is any vehicle used to carry 11 passengers or more for the transportation of school students to or from schools or school-related activities.[13] When a school bus is being used for purposes other than the actual transportation of children to or from school or in connection with school activities, all markings indicating “school bus” must be covered and the driver may not use the flashing visual signals.[14]
            Every school bus must have its headlights on during the entire period that the school bus is in operation.[15] Every school bus operated in Pennsylvania must be equipped with a side stop signal arm, on the left side of the vehicle, with a flashing red light connected to the same circuits as the red visual signals on the bus and automatically activated whenever the bus is stopped with the red visual signals in use.[16] School buses must also be equipped with a crossing control arm on the front of the vehicle that is automatically activated whenever the bus is stopped with the red visual signals in use.[17] A mirror must be located on the front of the bus to permit the driver to see any pedestrian in front of the bus, along with rear view mirrors sufficient to provide the operator with a proper view of the sides and rear of the bus. Where a bus failed to have such equipment, and this failure was a proximate cause of an accident that resulted in the death of a child, the bus company may be guilty of homicide by vehicle.[18]
            The operator of a school bus on any trafficway is required to actuate the amber visual signals at a point not more than 300 feet nor less than 150 feet prior to making a stop to pick up or discharge school children. The amber signals may not be used by a bus driver unless the red visual signals are to be actuated immediately following, and the amber signals must remain in operation until the red visual signals are actuated.[19] The driver of any other vehicle meeting or overtaking a school bus on the same roadway with the amber visual signals actuated must proceed past the school bus with caution and be prepared to stop when the red signals are flashing.[20]
Because of the highly increased potential for tragedy should a school bus accident occur, the Department of Transportation has created special licensing requirements for operators and these are accepted as rational safety precautions.[21] School Bus drivers must complete a special course of instruction and pass an annual physical examination in order to remain qualified to operate these vehicles.[22]

For a more thorough and detailed analysis of Pennsylvania vehicle law concerning school buses, see Dale G. Larrimore, Pennsylvania Rules of the Road, Section 8:7, (West’s Pennsylvania Practice Series, Vol. 13) (2015-2016 edition).



[1] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(a).
[2] Com. v. Bream, 73 Pa. D. & C.2d 110, (C.P. 1975).
[3] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(g).
[4] 67 Pa. Code §104.2.
[5] Com. v. Russell, 784 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001).
[6] Bradley's Guardian v. Ritchie, 57 Lanc. L.R. 129 (Pa. C.P. 1960).
[7] 75 Pa.C.S. §3101(b) and 75 Pa.C.S. §3345.
[8] Com. v. Zankowski, 546 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).
[9] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(a.1).
[10] Com. v. Fulmer, 621 A.2d 146 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993).
[11] Id.
[12] 75 Pa.C.S. §4552(a).
[13] 75 Pa.C.S. §102.
[14] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(f).
[15] 75 Pa.C.S. §4308.
[16] 75 Pa.C.S. §4552(b.1).
[17] 75 Pa.C.S. §4552(b.2)
[18] Com. v. McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc., 423 A.2d 413 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980).
[19] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(d).
[20] 75 Pa.C.S. §3345(b).
[21] See 67 Pa. Code §§71.1 et seq.
[22] 75 Pa.C.S. §1509; Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Johnson, 478 A.2d 521 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984).

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Left Turns and the Law

Left Turns and the Law
 Dale G. Larrimore, Esquire

            Under the Vehicle Code of Pennsylvania, drivers have three basic obligations when making a left turn. First, such turns must be made from the lane farthest to the left for traffic moving in the driver's direction of travel.[1] Second, a motorist must make a plainly visible signal of the intention to turn left, and the signal must be given far enough in advance of the turn to give an approaching motorist an opportunity to react to the warning.[2] Third, motorists making a left turn must yield the right of way to any oncoming vehicle that is “so close as to constitute a hazard.”[3] The first two duties are relatively straightforward, but the third requirement is what is the cause of most accidents and the centerpiece of most litigation arising out of left turn crashes.
            Making a left turn across oncoming lanes of traffic is a movement that is fraught with peril. While it seems obvious that a car cannot make a sudden turn in front of another vehicle, the issue of when a vehicle is “so close as to constitute a hazard” is one that is hard to define. Courts have often noted that the act of colliding with a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction while turning left is a factual indication that the oncoming vehicle was too close to turn in front of without constituting a hazard. And, certainly, if a motorist fails to look for oncoming traffic just before entering the intersection and then makes a left turn and strikes another vehicle, this is sufficient to infer that the motorist violated his duty to yield the right-of-way.[4]
Turning motorists do have the right to assume that the driver of another vehicle, who might be outside of their range of vision and coming from the opposite direction, will fulfill his or her legal duty and observe the restricted speed limit on the roadway. The turning motorist is not required to “anticipate and guard against the want of ordinary care on the part of another,” or to assume that another will “flagrantly violate the statutory speed limit.”[5] One court justified this standard by finding that “if the mere suggestion of a tire on the horizon is to instill apprehension and fear into all others using the highway, all traffic will freeze to a standstill.”[6] But in a situation where there is no allegation or evidence that the non-turning vehicle was speeding, and where there is evidence that a collision took place a “split second” after the motorist began his or her turn, then a court may reasonably conclude that the turning motorist began the turn when the non-turning vehicle was almost upon his or her vehicle.[7]
            Before making a left turn, a motorist must look for an oncoming vehicle and “a driver of a vehicle cannot claim to have looked when he has failed to see what the physical facts declare he should have seen.”[8] A court cannot ignore certain facts that demonstrate that the negligence of a driver was an actual real factor in causing an accident, such as making a left turn in front of an oncoming vehicle only 40 to 50 feet away.[9] Where a driver cannot see far enough into an oncoming lane to proceed into the road safely, it remains incumbent on the person entering into the through road to continue to look down the lane to be crossed as he or she proceeds into the roadway.[10]
            A motorist must exercise special precautions while attempting a left turn in weather that significantly reduces visibility and requires the motorist to make the turn at a very low rate of speed. The overriding duty of reasonableness mandates that a motorist making a turn in such weather conditions take extra precautions to make sure that the turn can be made safely and without interfering with oncoming traffic.[11]
            Pennsylvania courts have also discussed the duties of vehicle operators who encounter a vehicle turning left into their path of travel. A driver approaching an intersection has a right to assume that a motorist approaching from the opposite direction will not, without adequate warning, suddenly turn across a roadway in front of the driver.[12] Generally, drivers do not have to anticipate the negligence of other drivers and motorists approaching an intersection are not required to predict that a vehicle that has given no notice or insufficient notice of turning will negligently attempt to cross their path of travel.
            When a driver is stopped, waiting to make a left turn across oncoming lanes of traffic, an oncoming motorist may sometimes wave the turning car on, signaling that the turning motorist should proceed in front of the stopped oncoming vehicle. Our courts have recognized that such a signal “might be considered simply an invitation to allow the turning driver to pass in front of the signaler, or that it might be safe to pass all the way through the intersection.”[13] A hand signal may be nothing more than an invitation to pass when safe, and not a command to pass or an “all clear” signal.”[14] On the other hand, where the turning driver indicates that she saw the signaling motorist look in his rear view mirror to check whether any cars were coming and that she saw the signaling motorist wave to her three times and repeatedly mouth to her “come on,” then, under a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, it is for the jury or fact finder to determine the significance to be reasonably attributed to the hand signal of the oncoming motorist.[15]
            For a more thorough and detailed analysis of Pennsylvania law concerning left turns and the operation of vehicles through intersections, see Dale G. Larrimore, Pennsylvania Rules of the Road, chapters 3 and 4, (West’s Pennsylvania Practice Series, Vol. 13)(2015-2016).


[1] 75 Pa.C.S. §3331(b).
[2] 75 Pa.C.S. §3334(b); Silfies v. American Stores Co., 357 Pa. 176, 53 A.2d 610 (1947).
[3] 75 Pa.C.S. §3322.
[4] Eagleson v. Malone, 465 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983).
[5] Halbach v. Robinson Bros., 98 A.2d 750, 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1953).
[6] Flank v. Walker, 398 Pa. 166, 169, 157 A.2d 163, 166 (1960).
[7] Ditz v. Marshall, 393 A.2d 701 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978).
[8] Hoover v. Sackett, 292 A.2d 461, 463 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972).
[9] Craft v. Hetherly, 700 A.2d 520, 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).
[10] Klein v. Hollings, 992 F.2d 1285 (3d Cir.1993).
[11] Poltorak v. Sandy, 345 A.2d 201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975).
[12] Abee v. Stamm, 272 F. Supp. 406 (W.D. Pa. 1967).
[13] Askew By Askew v. Zeller, 521 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987).
[14] Keating v. Belcher, 384 Pa. 129, 119 A.2d 535 (1956).
[15] Erie Ins. Co. v. Williams, 855 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).

       

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Pedestrians Have the Right-of-Way — Within Crosswalks



Pedestrians, Crosswalks and Rights-of-Way[1]
Dale G. Larrimore, Esquire
Larrimore & Farnish, LLP
www.larrimorefarnish.com
 
            A pedestrian is defined in the Vehicle Code to be a natural person afoot,[2] but in a very real sense, everyone is a pedestrian. Whether you drive a car, ride a bicycle, or take a bus to school, work, shop or play, your journey always begins and ends on foot.
            A pedestrian is killed in a traffic accident every two hours in the United States.[3] Pedestrian fatalities now account for 15 percent of total traffic deaths, with another 150,000 injuries requiring emergency room treatment for non-fatal crash-related injuries.[4]
            These sobering statistics make it evident that pedestrians and motorists need to understand the risk factors associated with sharing the road, but many studies have indicated that most people have a limited understanding of right-of-way rules.[5]
            Generally, pedestrians have the right-of-way at intersections, but not when crossing between intersections,[6] and when entering into the crossing point of two roadways, all motorists are required to yield to pedestrians who are in a crosswalk.[7] Under the Vehicle Code, when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, a motorist must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at the intersection.[8]
             Because pedestrians have the right of way while crossing a roadway in a crosswalk, it is crucial to recognize that this path of safety does not have to be marked to be considered as crosswalks. Under the Vehicle Code, a crosswalk includes any portion of a roadway (whether in an intersection or elsewhere) that is distinctly marked for pedestrian crossing, but the term also includes any part of a road, whether marked with lines or not, “at an intersection” that is included “within the extension of the lateral lines of an existing sidewalk” leading to the intersection.[9]
            A pedestrian must exercise due care in crossing any street, but the mere fact that a pedestrian crossed between intersections is not sufficient to demonstrate any negligence on the part of the pedestrian.[10] Whether or not a pedestrian exercised such due care must be determined by a jury. However, every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk has a higher duty of care and must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.[11]  
            The rights of a pedestrian upon a public roadway are equal to those of a vehicle.[12] A motorist's right to use a public roadway is not superior to those rights possessed by a pedestrian and the fact that the roadways are heavily traveled does not function to transform the rights of motorists; it merely requires the need for the exercise of greater care in proportion to the increased risk.[13]
            In assessing fault in any pedestrian accident, it is appropriate to take into consideration all surrounding circumstances, such as a hill that would obscure oncoming traffic, whether the roadway is one-way or two-way, and whether the pedestrian is carrying anything or walking a dog that might distract his attention.[14] People texting, or even talking on a cell phone, are distracted and this lack of attention to where they are walking is creating more and more accidents every year. When crossing a street at other than a regular crossing, a pedestrian must look before undertaking to cross the street and must continue to look while proceeding across, look again when reaching the center of the highway and continue to look while crossing the final lanes of the road.[15] Where a motorist sees a pedestrian standing in the street obviously waiting for the motorist to advance, the pedestrian's conduct constitutes an invitation for the motorist to do so.[16]
            Pedestrians have a right to rely on the assumption that motorists will not be negligent and will not run them down, as all motorists owe a duty of care to all pedestrians in the immediate zone of danger. [17] A pedestrian has a perfect right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by the drivers of automobiles on highways, as any person with the right of way has the right to presume that others will comply with the duty to recognize it and yield to it.[18] In the memorable words of Justice Michael A. Musmanno:

“A pedestrian who has violated no traffic law and is traversing a street at a regular crossing has the right to stop traffic until he passes by in safety, even as Moses held back the Red Sea. To say that a pedestrian may not cross a street merely because an automobile may be in view is equivalent to saying that the machine has rights superior to those of a human being. The converse is true. Everything else being equal, the automobile must give way to the prerogatives of the foot passenger who does not wear a steel coat and is not equipped with bumpers and fenders to protect him in any conflict with his four-wheeled potential adversary.”[19]

The driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring pedestrians, and a motorist will not be permitted to avoid liability where the accident results from the failure to drive with the necessary care under the circumstances.23 However, a motorist is not liable for a collision between the vehicle and a pedestrian when the collision is the result of the pedestrian's negligence, or where the accident resulted through the negligence of neither the pedestrian nor the motorist.24
            A motorist is negligent if he allows his vehicle to run into a pedestrian standing in a roadway where the motorist has enough space to avoid the pedestrian.25 When a driver observes, or with reasonable care ought to observe, a pedestrian in time to escape collision between her vehicle and the pedestrian, the vehicle operator must do so.26  A motorist's negligence will turn, to a large degree, upon whether the motorist had the opportunity to see the pedestrian for a reasonable distance before making contact.27 Where a motorist hits a pedestrian who has been standing upon the roadway in clear view for a sufficient length of time to have been seen and avoided by the motorist, such action can be interpreted to be negligence as a matter of law on the part of the motorist.28 This rule particularly holds true when the pedestrian does not suddenly change his or her course.29 The failure of a motorist to give a pedestrian a warning of the vehicle's approach is also evidence of negligence.30
            For a motorist to be negligent by striking a pedestrian, the pedestrian must have been on the road long enough for a careful driver to have had time to avoid hitting that pedestrian.31 Where there is an unobstructed view of the highway, there is an inference that a motorist will see any pedestrian upon that highway in front of his or her vehicle. Even where there is an obstruction, its presence becomes irrelevant in a determination of whether a motorist was liable for striking a pedestrian when the motorist acknowledges observing a pedestrian on the highway despite the obstruction to the motorist's view.33
            The duty of care of pedestrians crossing a street can be summarized as follows:37
         (1)  Pursuant to Section 3543(a) of the Vehicle Code, every pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point other than within a crosswalk at an intersection or any marked crosswalk must yield the right-of-way to vehicles.
          (2) Although Section 3543(a) requires yielding, it does not prohibit crossing, and the mere fact that a pedestrian crosses a street between intersections does not establish negligence on the part of the pedestrian.38
          (3) A pedestrian crossing a street at other than a marked crosswalk or a crosswalk at an intersection is required to exercise a higher degree of care than a pedestrian crossing at an intersection or in a marked crosswalk,39 and the pedestrian must look before beginning to crossing the street and continue to look while proceeding.40
          (5) A pedestrian has the right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by motorists.41
          (6) Whether a pedestrian has exercised due care in crossing a street at other than a marked crosswalk or a crosswalk at an intersection is a question of fact for the jury.42

[1] For a more thorough and detailed analysis of Pennsylvania law controlling the operation of vehicles through intersections, see Dale G. Larrimore, Pennsylvania Rules of the Road, §§ 8.10 (West’s Pennsylvania Practice Series, Vol. 13)(2015-2016).
[2] 75 Pa.C.S. §102.
[3] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2013 Data - Pedestrians. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2015. Publication no. DOT-HS-812-124. Accessed August 22, 2016. (Citing statistics from Fatality Analysis Reporting System, in 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in the United States, an average of one crash-related pedestrian death every 2 hours. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were almost 4900 pedestrian fatalities in 2014, and an additional 10 percent increase was projected for 2015.)
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System). Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2015. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. Accessed February 17, 2016
[5] Hatfield, J., Fernandes, R.F., Soames, J., & Smith, K. (2007). Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian crossings: Observational study and survey, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 833-842; Mitman, M.F., & Ragland, D.R. (2007). Crosswalk confusion: More evidence why pedestrian and driver knowledge of the vehicle code should not be assumed. Transportation Research Record, 2002, 55-63. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
[6] Morris v. Moss, 290 Pa. Super. 587, 435 A.2d 184 (1981). See also 75 Pa.C.S. §3543(a).
[7] Chaudhuri v. Capital Area Transit, 131 A.3d 589 (Pa.Commw. Ct. 2016), citing Bressler v. Dannon Yogurt, 573 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 1990) & Barney v. Foradas, 451 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 1982).
[8] 75 Pa.C.S. §3542(a).
[9] 75 Pa.C.S. §102.
[10] Bressler v. Dannon Yogurt, 392 Pa. Super. 475, 573 A.2d 562 (1990); Lavely v. Wolota, 253 Pa. Super. 196, 384 A.2d 1298 (1978).
[11] 75 Pa.C.S. §3543.See also, Chaudhuri v. Capital Area Transit, 131 A.3d 589 (Pa.Commw. Ct. 2016).
[12] Twinn v. Noble, 270 Pa. 500, 113 A. 686 (1921); see Aaron v. Strausser, 360 Pa. 82, 59 A.2d 910 (1948) (operator of a vehicle and a pedestrian are each under a duty to respect lawful rights of each other).
[13] Everitt v. Auchu, 66 Pa. Super. 443, 1917 WL 3264 (1917).
[14] Sweigert v. Mazer, 410 Pa. 71, 188 A.2d 472 (1963).
[15] Auel v. White, 389 Pa. 208, 213, 132 A.2d 350, 353 (1957)); Bressler v. Dannon Yogurt, 392 Pa. Super. 475, 573 A.2d 562, 567 (1990); Parker v. Jones, 423 Pa. 15, 223 A.2d 229 (1966).
[16] Griswold v. Drumheller, 60 Montg. 147 (Pa. C.P. 1944).
[17] Aaron v. Strausser, 360 Pa. 82, 59 A.2d 910 (1948); Mazzagatti v. Everingham by Everingham, 512 Pa. 266, 516 A.2d 672, 679 (1986); Lavely v. Wolota, 253 Pa. Super. 196, 384 A.2d 1298 (1978).
[18] Barney v. Foradas, 451 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 1982).
[19] Frisina v. Dailey, 150 A.2d 348 (Pa. 1959).
23 Berk v. LeQuin, 412 Pa. 88, 194 A.2d 136 (1963); Benn v. Brown, 409 Pa. 22, 185 A.2d 326 (1962).
24 Benn v. Brown, 409 Pa. 22, 185 A.2d 326 (1962).
25 Benn v. Brown, 409 Pa. 22, 185 A.2d 326 (1962).
26 Berry v. Lintner, 226 Pa. Super. 562, 323 A.2d 253 (1974).
27 Calloway v. Greenawalt, 82 Dauph. 305 (Pa. C.P. 1964).
28 Pinto v. Bell Fruit Co., 148 Pa. Super. 132, 24 A.2d 768 (1942); Rost v. Wickenheiser, 229 Pa. Super. 84, 323 A.2d 154 (1974).
29 Matzasoszki v. Jacobson, 122 Pa. Super. 180, 186 A. 227 (1936).
30 Sadler v. Frost, 14 Cumb. L.J. 10 (Pa. C.P. 1963).
31 Moore v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 364 Pa. 343, 72 A.2d 117 (1950).
33 Haas v. Wesley, 140 Pa. Super. 453, 14 A.2d 179 (1940).
37 Sadoski v. Regula, 2008 WL 4453475 (Pa. C.P. 2008).
38 Stong v. Com., 817 A.2d 576, 585–586 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003).
39 Bressler v. Dannon Yogurt, 392 Pa. Super. 475, 484, 573 A.2d 562, 567 (1990).
40 Sweigert v. Mazer, 410 Pa. 71, 74, 188 A.2d 472, 473 (1963).
41 Wright v. Eastman, 63 A.3d 281, 284 (Pa. Super. 2013); Lavely v. Wolota, 253 Pa. Super. 196, 202, 384 A.2d 1298, 1302 (1978).
42 See, e.g., Bressler v. Dannon Yogurt, 392 Pa. Super. 475, 573 A.2d 562 (1990)