Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pulleyn v. Cavalier Ins. Corp.green2 sentences2015We relied upon Pulleyn v. Cavalier Insurance Corporation, 351 Pa.Super. 347 , 505 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1986) (en banc), where we held that the insurer had no duty to defend a negligent entrustment claim against an employer under a casualty policy which contained an exclusion for personal injury arising from maintenance or use of an automobile operated by an employee in the course of his employment. 2015We relied upon Pulleyn v. Cavalier Insurance Corporation, 351 Pa.Super. 347 , 505 A.2d 1016, 1020 (1986) (en banc), where we held that the insurer had no duty to defend a negligent entrustment claim against an employer under a casualty policy which contained an exclusion for personal injury arising from maintenance or use of an automobile operated by an employee in the course of his employment. | 2 | 2 |
Elder v. Orluckgreen2 sentences1995Our supreme court has held that this language means “recovery by an injured plaintiff will be precluded only where plaintiffs negligence exceeds the combined negligence of all defendants.” Elder v. Orluck, 511 Pa. 402 , 515 A.2d 517, 525 (1986) (emphasis added). 2 We have found no binding *472 cases that include this peculiar combination of a negligent entrustment claim and comparative negligence issues under similar circumstances. 1995Our supreme court has held that this language means “recovery by an injured plaintiff will be precluded only where plaintiffs negligence exceeds the combined negligence of all defendants.” Elder v. Orluck, 511 Pa. 402 , 515 A.2d 517, 525 (1986) (emphasis added). 2 We have found no binding *472 cases that include this peculiar combination of a negligent entrustment claim and comparative negligence issues under similar circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Jerome Taylor & Associates
green
2 sentences2020Banks, 700 A.2d at 1332 .6 Here, Mr. Townsend explains that “the gist of [his] legal malpractice claim is the fact that [Defendant-Attorneys] failed to name Karlie Milstein as a defendant pursuant to a negligent entrustment claim.” Mr. Townsend’s Brief at 36. 2020Banks, 700 A.2d at 1332 .6 Here, Mr. Townsend explains that “the gist of [his] legal malpractice claim is the fact that [Defendant-Attorneys] failed to name Karlie Milstein as a defendant pursuant to a negligent entrustment claim.” Mr. Townsend’s Brief at 36. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Motorists Mutual Insurance v. Kulp
green
2 sentences2015In Pulleyn, we reasoned that it was not the negligent entrustment of the vehicle that caused the plaintiff's injuries, but rather the use of the vehicle by the employee that caused the harm.6 This distinction was also critical in Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Kulp, 688 F. Supp. 1033 (E.D. 2015In Pulleyn , we reasoned that it was not the negligent entrustment of the vehicle that caused the plaintiffs injuries, but rather the use of the vehicle by the employee that caused the harm. 6 This distinction was also critical in Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Kulp, 688 F.Supp. 1033 (E.D.Pa.1988), a decision the Wilcha Court found to be persuasive. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wertz v. Kephart
green
2 sentences1992Similarly, in Wertz v. Kephart, 374 Pa. Super. 274 , 542 A.2d 1019 (1988), the Superior Court determined that a plaintiff must prove knowledge on the part of a lender of the incompetency of the person to whom the vehicle is entrusted at the time the vehicle is entrusted. 1992Similarly, in Wertz v. Kephart, 374 Pa. Super. 274 , 542 A.2d 1019 (1988), the Superior Court determined that a plaintiff must prove knowledge on the part of a lender of the incompetency of the person to whom the vehicle is entrusted at the time the vehicle is entrusted. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Robare v. Pekarcik
green
2 sentences1992In Robare v. Pekarcik, 109 Pa. Commw. 87 , 530 A.2d 534 (1987), the Commonwealth Court, relying on Gibson , held that the required proof for a negligent entrustment claim was that the driver was intoxicated at the time the owner gave him the keys. 1992In Robare v. Pekarcik, 109 Pa. Commw. 87 , 530 A.2d 534 (1987), the Commonwealth Court, relying on Gibson , held that the required proof for a negligent entrustment claim was that the driver was intoxicated at the time the owner gave him the keys. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Gibson v. Bruner
green
2 sentences1988The court supports its position by citing three cases which actually set forth a basis of recovery under negligent entrustment, in particular Gibson v. Bruner, 406 Pa. 315 , 178 A.2d 145 (1961). 1988The court supports its position by citing three cases which actually set forth a basis of recovery under negligent entrustment, in particular Gibson v. Bruner, 406 Pa. 315 , 178 A.2d 145 (1961). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Waterhouse
green
2 sentences1986Waterhouse, supra, 424 A.2d at 680 . 1986Waterhouse, supra, 424 A.2d at 680 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.