7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
R.W. v. Manzekgreen1 sentence2024Trial Court Op. at 6 (citing R.W. v. Manzek, 888 A.2d 740, 746 (Pa. 2005)); R.R. 346a. | 1 | 1 |
Toney v. Chester County Hospitalgreen1 sentence2023Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 197-98 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (some citations omitted; emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. Clarion Hospitalgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Matthews v. Clarion Hosp., 742 A.2d 1111, 1116 (Pa. Super. 1999) (reversing summary judgment where plaintiff who fell from table during surgery submitted nurse expert on standard of care; where injury “is so immediately and directly, or naturally and probably, the result of the accident the connection between them does not depend solely on” expert testimony) (citation omitted); Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 582 A.2d 1314, 1318 (Pa. Super. 1990) (remanding for new trial; post- surgery paralysis evidence was sufficient to support res ipsa charge, and trial court should have given charge even t | 1 | 1 |
Sedlitsky v. Paresogreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., Matthews v. Clarion Hosp., 742 A.2d 1111, 1116 (Pa. Super. 1999) (reversing summary judgment where plaintiff who fell from table during surgery submitted nurse expert on standard of care; where injury “is so immediately and directly, or naturally and probably, the result of the accident the connection between them does not depend solely on” expert testimony) (citation omitted); Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 582 A.2d 1314, 1318 (Pa. Super. 1990) (remanding for new trial; post- surgery paralysis evidence was sufficient to support res ipsa charge, and trial court should have given charge even t | 1 | 1 |
Toogood v. Rogalgreen2 sentences2012Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 573 Pa. 245 , 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (2003)). 2012Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 573 Pa. 245 , 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicinegreen2 sentences2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti 2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, "i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage." Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a "duty of care" acti | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Evansgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti 2008Therefore, under this theory of recovery, a plaintiff must establish the elements of a negligence claim, “i.e., that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, 760 A.2d 863, 868 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 632 , 781 A.2d 137 (2001), quoting Martin v. Evans, 551 Pa. 496, 502 , 711 A.2d 458, 461 (1998). ¶ 16 In this case, Toney satisfied the pleading requirement for a “duty of care” acti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stickman
green
1 sentence2024Although Inmate correctly argues that sovereign immunity is not a bar to claims that a “prison official negligently handle[d] an inmate’s personal property,” Williams, 917 A.2d at 918 , that defense applies only when, in the first instance, the 10 complaint alleges sufficient facts to satisfy the elements of a negligence claim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re the June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury
green
1 sentence2012The doctor sets forth the elements of a negligence claim 2 and also notes that “medical malpractice is further defined as the ‘unwarranted departure from generally accepted standards of medical practice resulting in injury to a patient.’ ” Id. (quoting Toogood v. J. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Mentzer v. Ognibene
green
2 sentences2000To prevail, plaintiff must prove the elements of a negligence claim which require them to prove that: “(1) Ms. Gillman owed plaintiff husband a duty “(2) she breached that duty, and “(3) he sustained an injury because of her breach of duty.” In Mentzer v. Ognibene, 408 Pa. Super. 578 , 597 A.2d 604 (1991), defendants owned property and hired a contractor to erect a building on it. 2000To prevail, plaintiff must prove the elements of a negligence claim which require them to prove that: “(1) Ms. Gillman owed plaintiff husband a duty “(2) she breached that duty, and “(3) he sustained an injury because of her breach of duty.” In Mentzer v. Ognibene, 408 Pa. Super. 578 , 597 A.2d 604 (1991), defendants owned property and hired a contractor to erect a building on it. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.