car violation in Pennsylvania

2019The provisions of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302 require that “[t]he operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall display the lighted head lamps and other lamps and illuminating devices required under this chapter . . . [b]etween sunset and sunrise.” Our Supreme Court has noted that “if there is a legitimate stop for a traffic violation (based on probable cause), additional suspicion may arise before the initial stop’s purpose has been fulfilled; then, detention may be permissible to investigate the new suspicions.” Commonwealth v. Chase, - 12 - J-A27016-18 960 A.2d 108 , 115 n. 5 (Pa. 2008) (citation omit

2019The provisions of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302 require that “[t]he operator of a vehicle upon a highway shall display the lighted head lamps and other lamps and illuminating devices required under this chapter . . . [b]etween sunset and sunrise.” Our Supreme Court has noted that “if there is a legitimate stop for a traffic violation (based on probable cause), additional suspicion may arise before the initial stop’s purpose has been fulfilled; then, detention may be permissible to investigate the new suspicions.” Commonwealth v. Chase, 960 A.2d 108 , 115 n. 5 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted).

1973We must agree with the plaintiff that these issues were for the jury’s consideration under the evidence in this case and that the trial judge therefore erred in charging “it is the law that defendant could not foresee and had no duty to foresee that Denise would start the car.” In Glass v. Freeman, 430 Pa. 21 (1968), the court held it was foreseeable that the 7-year-old son of the defendant would, in his father’s absence, climb aboard and drive the tractor which defendant had been operating and had for a short time left unattended with its motor running.

1973We must agree with the plaintiff that these issues were for the jury's consideration under the evidence in this case and that the trial judge therefore erred in charging "it is the law that defendant could not foresee and had no duty to foresee that Denise would start the car." In Glass v. Freeman, 430 Pa. 21 (1968), the court held it was foreseeable that the 7-year-old son of the defendant would, in his father's absence, climb aboard and drive the tractor which defendant had been operating and had for a short time left unattended with its motor running.

1910Where the injury is chargeable to the manner of construction of a car the rule does not apply if the accident is to the passenger, and not to the car: Farley v. Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58 .” The first assignment is sustained and the judgment reversed with a venire facias de novo.

1892Where the injury is chargeable to the manner of construction of a car the rule does not apply if the accident is to the passenger, and not to the car: Farley v. The Traction Co., 132 Pa. 58 .

2025He ____________________________________________ 2 See also Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 366 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa. 1976) (emphasis added) (explaining that the definition of abandonment for Fourth Amendment purposes differs from the strict property-right sense; the abandonment analysis turns not on a property interest in the item but an appellant’s possession of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property in question at the time of the search). -7- J-A08031-25 asserts he later gave the officers the keys and they used them to conduct a warrantless search of the car in violation of Alexander, su

2025He ____________________________________________ 2 See also Commonwealth v. Shoatz, 366 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa. 1976) (emphasis added) (explaining that the definition of abandonment for Fourth Amendment purposes differs from the strict property-right sense; the abandonment analysis turns not on a property interest in the item but an appellant’s possession of a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property in question at the time of the search). -7- J-A08031-25 asserts he later gave the officers the keys and they used them to conduct a warrantless search of the car in violation of Alexander, su

2017A location can constitute a place of isolation “if detention is under circumstances which make discovery or rescue unlikely.” Id. (citation and emphasis omitted) (defendant’s actions created “place of isolation” within victim’s home for purposes of kidnapping statute, even though police arrived approximately twenty minutes after incident began and surrounded home; no one was able to reach victims for five hours, fate of victims was exclusively within defendant’s control until he surrendered, seventy-year-old victim was immobilized on floor from shoulder injury, and four-year-old victim was car

1999Commonwealth v. Steinmetz, 440 Pa.Super. 591 , 656 A.2d 527 (1995).

1999Commonwealth v. Steinmetz, 440 Pa.Super. 591 , 656 A.2d 527 (1995).

1988Meehan v. Cheltenham Township, 410 Pa. 446 , 189 A.2d 593 (1963); Roman Mosaic and Tile Co., Inc. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa.Super. 215, 218 , 313 A.2d 305, 307 (1973).

1988Meehan v. Cheltenham Township, 410 Pa. 446 , 189 A.2d 593 (1963); Roman Mosaic and Tile Co., Inc. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa.Super. 215, 218 , 313 A.2d 305, 307 (1973).

1988LIABILITY OF STATE FARM A. Storage Fee Prior To Demand For Car The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an equitable one, Wolf v. Wolf 356 Pa.Super. 365 , 514 A.2d 901 (1986), which permits recovery where the claimant can show that a benefit was wrongly secured or passively received, and that it would be unconscionable for the party receiving the benefit to retain it without payment.

1988LIABILITY OF STATE FARM A. Storage Fee Prior To Demand For Car The doctrine of unjust enrichment is an equitable one, Wolf v. Wolf 356 Pa.Super. 365 , 514 A.2d 901 (1986), which permits recovery where the claimant can show that a benefit was wrongly secured or passively received, and that it would be unconscionable for the party receiving the benefit to retain it without payment.

1946Their burden was to show that the driver (though admittedly not then on the business of the laundry company) was at the time and place of the accident using the automobile within the permission given him by the laundry company for its use: Freshkorn v. Marietta et al., 345 Pa. 416 (1942); Laroche v. Farm Bureau Mutual Auto.