case comes within rule in Pennsylvania

1978See, e.g., Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 437 , 349 A.2d 529 (1975); Munns v. Easthome Furniture Industries, Inc., 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 61 , 164 A.2d 30 (1960).

1978See, e.g., Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 437 , 349 A.2d 529 (1975); Munns v. Easthome Furniture Industries, Inc., 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 61 , 164 A.2d 30 (1960).

1971And the applicable standard of care, against which a nurse’s conduct should be measured, is predicated upon the degree of care ordinarily exercised by other nurses in the locality, or in similar localities: A.L.R., supra. The Restatement, Second Torts, section 299A, supports this rule, though by different language: “Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar

1971And the applicable standard of care, against which a nurse’s conduct should be measured, is predicated upon the degree of care ordinarily exercised by other nurses in the locality, or in similar localities: A.L.R., supra. The Restatement, Second Torts, section 299A, supports this rule, though by different language: “Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar

1961The court concluded that the case comes within the doctrine expressed in Russell’s Appeal, 75 Pa. 269 , where the absence of a power of revocation was held to be sufficient in connection with the other facts of the case to warrant a decree setting aside a deed of trust on the ground of mistake.

1951Clearly this case comes within the rule of McClelland v. Copeland, 355 Pa. 405 , 50 A. 2d 221 , where Mr. Justice Jones clarified the application of The Vehicle Code in this connection and dispelled the notion that the presence of more than three persons on the front seat of an automobile may be considered negligence per se as a matter of law.

1951Clearly this case comes within the rule of McClelland v. Copeland, 355 Pa. 405 , 50 A. 2d 221 , where Mr. Justice Jones clarified the application of The Vehicle Code in this connection and dispelled the notion that the presence of more than three persons on the front seat of an automobile may be considered negligence per se as a matter of law.

1951Appellant relies upon Mahoney v. City of Pittsburgh, 320 Pa. 44 , 181 A. 590 , to support his contention, but in the McClelland case, supra, at page 411, it was said: “But, plainly enough, this court did not hold in the Mahoney case that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law merely because he was one of four persons occupying the front seat of the automobile involved in the accident there in question.” What the statute contemplates is a causal connection between the occupancy of the front seat by more than three persons and an accident involving the vehicle.

1951Appellant relies upon Mahoney v. City of Pittsburgh, 320 Pa. 44 , 181 A. 590 , to support his contention, but in the McClelland case, supra, at page 411, it was said: “But, plainly enough, this court did not hold in the Mahoney case that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law merely because he was one of four persons occupying the front seat of the automobile involved in the accident there in question.” What the statute contemplates is a causal connection between the occupancy of the front seat by more than three persons and an accident involving the vehicle.

1948Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225 ; Elliott v. McGoun, 307 Pa. 185 ; Coral Gables, Inc. v. *343 MacBroom, 311 Pa. 183 .

1948Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225 ; Elliott v. McGoun, 307 Pa. 185 ; Coral Gables, Inc. v. *343 MacBroom, 311 Pa. 183 .

1948Corp. v. Mayer, 306 Pa. 225 ; Elliott v. McGoun, 307 Pa. 185 ; Coral Gables, Inc. v. *343 MacBroom, 311 Pa. 183 .

1941Under the circumstances, we believe this case comes within the rule laid down by Chief Justice Sharswood in Breden v. Gilliland, Exec., et al., 67 Pa. 34, 37 , where it was said: “Opening a judgment and striking it off are two entirely different things.

1941Giannone v. Real, 333 Pa. 21 ; Sopherstein v. Burtels, 178 Pa. 401 .

1941Giannone v. Real, 333 Pa. 21 ; Sopherstein v. Burtels, 178 Pa. 401 .

1941I think the case comes within the rule of Rutherford v. Academy of Music, 87 Pa. Superior Ct. 355 , and the cases which follow it, and that the apparent conflict between the plaintiff’s testimony quoted in the majority opinion and her statement, “I could not see because there were no lights outside and the bright lights on the inside kind of blinded me towards the outside”, and that, as she looked out of the door, “The floor just looked to me like it sloped right out on the street”, was for the jury, particularly in view of the fact that the burden of proving contributory negligence was on the

1931There is, therefore, no lapse of David’s legacy on which section 15 (b) of the Wills Act, giving the legacy to his children, may take effect; and the case comes within the principle of Kunkel v. Kunkel, 267 Pa. 163 , in which a bequest to a brother, “if living at the time of my decease,” was held not to have the benefit of the statute.

1930Consequently, the case comes within the rule of Dasher v. Harrisburg, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 79 , that, where one connects with a sewer without authority and in violation of city ordinances, the city is not liable to him for injuries resulting from the negligent maintenance of the sewer.

1930This case having been tried ex parte, and the judgment having been entered upon the finding for the plaintiff, it [may] be treated not as an adverse judgment, but as ‘won by default.’ ” We think the case comes within the rule referred to in Pennsylvania Stave Company’s Appeal, 225 Pa. 178, at 181 , that, if a case calling for equitable interference is made out, “the ending of the term would not necessarily preclude relief.” Order affirmed.

1929It is true that a partner is not entitled to special compensation for work performed in the joint undertaking, unless it was so agreed (Delp v. Edlis, 190 Pa. 25 ; Lindsey v. Stranaban, 129 Pa. 635 ), but, under the facts found by the assessor, this case comes within the exception noted, and, by stipulation filed, these findings are to be considered controlling.

1929It is true that a partner is not entitled to special compensation for work performed in the joint undertaking, unless it was so agreed (Delp v. Edlis, 190 Pa. 25 ; Lindsey v. Stranaban, 129 Pa. 635 ), but, under the facts found by the assessor, this case comes within the exception noted, and, by stipulation filed, these findings are to be considered controlling.

1929This case comes Within the principle laid down in Gausman v. Pearson Co., 284 Pa. 348 , which holds that in order to constitute an accident there must be some unusual occurrence or untoward happening aside from the usual course of events.

1913It seems to us that the question of the plaintiff’s title to the horse and harness was a mixed one of law and fact as in Bell v. McCloskey, 155 Pa. 319 .

1909Co., 204 Pa. 22 , where Justice Fell said: “This act has been liberally construed, and isolated transactions between a foreign corporation and citizens of this state have been held not to come within its prohibition, and only such corporations as have entered this state by their agents and transacted their ordinary business here, have been considered as ‘doing business’ in violation of the act.” Bearing in mind that the corporation in the present case had not entered upon the transaction of business in this commonwealth at the time the contract was made and that before it did so it fully compl

1906This branch of the case comes within the rule stated in Chain v. Hart, 140 Pa. 374 .

1906This case comes within the rule of Kaufhold v. Arnold, 163 Pa. 269 , in that an employer is not responsible for those dangers to which the employee voluntarily subjects himself.

1905In any event, the case comes within the rule laid down in Road in Upper Darby Twp., 15 Pa. Superior Ct. 652 . 7.

1904It is argued, however, that the case comes within the principle of Locke’s Appeal, 72 Pa. 491 .

1904If the act was an absolute and unconditional repeal of the prohibitory act for Potter county, it would, "of course, leave that territory subject to the general laws governing the granting of licenses, and if, in addition to the repeal and in lieu of the second section, the people of the county of Potter had been allowed to vote license or no license, the case would be practically that of Locke’s Appeal, supra. It may be said that the practical result would be the same, whether the vote of the people be for repeal or against repeal, or for license or against license.

1901The case comes within the rule laid down in Fries v. Null, 154 Pa. 573 , and 158 Pa. 15 .

1901The case comes within the rule laid down in Fries v. Null, 154 Pa. 573 , and 158 Pa. 15 .

1894The case comes within the principle of Irey v. Railroad Co., 132 Pa. 563 .