control doctrine in Pennsylvania

47 Pennsylvania opinions name it 8 courts 1929–2023 1 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Kotal v. Goldberggreen pa · 1953 · cited in 4 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1956–1974 2 sentences 1960The exclusive control doctrine has been applied to many circumstances since Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., supra, including: The drifting of an unoccupied automobile down hill (Hickerson v. Daskam, 313 Pa. 379 ); an automobile leaving the highway (Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1 ); the top of a folding bed falling down (Lyttle v. Denny, 222 Pa. 395 ) ; the catching fire of an office floor after workmen had been working on it (Trostle v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 273 ); an. exploding glass jar containing coffee (Dillon v. William S. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 1959The learned discussion of the doctrine of exclusive control by Mr. Justice Bell, in his concurring opinion in Kotal, Admr. v. Goldberg, 375 Pa. 397, 405 , 100 A. 2d 630 (1953), points out the difference of opinion and also the confusion that has been created by the extension of this doctrine to facts and other fields of negligence not contemplated by Shafer v. Lacoeh, supra, wherein the principle was first laid down.	2	4
Miller v. Hickeygreen pa · 1951 · cited in 7 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1951–1996 2 sentences 1996Perhaps most directly on point with defendant’s position that the doctrine of exclusive control does not apply to the present case is the Supreme Court case of Miller v. Hickey, 368 Pa. 317 , 81 A.2d 910 (1951). 1996Perhaps most directly on point with defendant’s position that the doctrine of exclusive control does not apply to the present case is the Supreme Court case of Miller v. Hickey, 368 Pa. 317 , 81 A.2d 910 (1951).	1	7
Gilbert v. Korvette's, Inc.green pasuperct · 1972 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974However, since Otis Elevator did not appeal the Superior Court order granting a new trial, I would affirm that order. [5] NOTES [1] For the presently relevant portions of the contract, see note 33 infra. [2] Gilbert v. Korvette's, Inc., 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 359 , 299 A.2d 356 (1972). 1974See the excellent treatment of the subject, and the distinctions between the doctrines of res ipsa loquitur and exclusive control in Gilbert v. Korvette’s, Inc., 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 359 , 299 A. 2d 356 (1972). .	1	2
Commonwealth v. Sheffieldgreen pasuperct · 1973 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 2 sentences 1974However, since Otis Elevator did not appeal the Superior Court order granting a new trial, I would affirm that order. [5] NOTES [1] For the presently relevant portions of the contract, see note 33 infra. [2] Gilbert v. Korvette's, Inc., 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 359 , 299 A.2d 356 (1972). 1974See the excellent treatment of the subject, and the distinctions between the doctrines of res ipsa loquitur and exclusive control in Gilbert v. Korvette’s, Inc., 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 359 , 299 A. 2d 356 (1972). .	1	2
Trouser Corp. of America v. Goodman & Theise, Inc.green ca3 · 1946 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1950–1965 2 sentences 1965Appellant argues that the doctrine of exclusive control has been applied in situations in which plaintiff’s witnesses offered testimony showing not only the happening of the accident but also the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and in support thereof cites Trouser Corporation of America v. Goodman & Theise, Inc., 153 F. 2d 284 (3rd Cir. 1946); McManus v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, 8 Pa. D. & C. 2d 303 , affirmed per curiam, 389 Pa. 168 , 132 A. 2d 242 (1957) ; Turek v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 361 Pa. 512 , 64 A. 2d 779 (1949); and Noah W. 1950See also Malts v. Garter, 311 Pa. 550, 553 , 166 A. 852 ; Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa. 497, 504 , 32 A. 44 ; and Trouser Corporation of America v. Goodman & Theise, Inc., 153 F. 2d 284, 285 (C.	1	2
Robinson v. Wirtsgreen pa · 1956 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1956–1961	1	2
Ebersole v. Beistlinegreen pa · 1951 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1953–1959	1	2
Woodburn v. Consolidation Coal Co.green pasuperct · 1991 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Egan v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green pa · 1989 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co.green pasuperct · 1969 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (70)

Case	Cited	Years
Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co. green · 1895 2 sentences 1960Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa. 497 , is said to be the leading case in Pennsylvania, and the father of the so-called exclusive control doctrine. 1960The exclusive control doctrine has been applied to many circumstances since Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., supra, including: The drifting of an unoccupied automobile down hill (Hickerson v. Daskam, 313 Pa. 379 ); an automobile leaving the highway (Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1 ); the top of a folding bed falling down (Lyttle v. Denny, 222 Pa. 395 ) ; the catching fire of an office floor after workmen had been working on it (Trostle v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 273 ); an. exploding glass jar containing coffee (Dillon v. William S. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct.	8	1950–1965
Izzi v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. green pa · 1963 2 sentences 1974Co., 412 Pa. 559 , 195 A. 2d 784 (1963.) 3 It is at once apparent from a review of the Restatement 4 and the cases that in order to avail themselves of the doctrine of exclusive control, plaintiffs must show a duty owing them by de fendant. 1974Co., 412 Pa. 559 , 195 A. 2d 784 (1963.) 3 It is at once apparent from a review of the Restatement 4 and the cases that in order to avail themselves of the doctrine of exclusive control, plaintiffs must show a duty owing them by de fendant.	7	1965–1974
MacK v. Reading Company green pa · 1954 2 sentences 1960The exclusive control doctrine has been applied to many circumstances since Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., supra, including: The drifting of an unoccupied automobile down hill (Hickerson v. Daskam, 313 Pa. 379 ); an automobile leaving the highway (Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1 ); the top of a folding bed falling down (Lyttle v. Denny, 222 Pa. 395 ) ; the catching fire of an office floor after workmen had been working on it (Trostle v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 273 ); an. exploding glass jar containing coffee (Dillon v. William S. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 1960Pennsylvania seems to be the leader in what Justice Musmanno calls the “driving force of modern decisions with their realistic application of the exclusive control doctrine to present day conditions”: Mack v. Reading Company, 377 Pa. 135, 143 , 41 A. L.	6	1955–1963
Dillon v. William S. Scull Co. green pasuperct · 1948 2 sentences 1960The exclusive control doctrine has been applied to many circumstances since Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., supra, including: The drifting of an unoccupied automobile down hill (Hickerson v. Daskam, 313 Pa. 379 ); an automobile leaving the highway (Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1 ); the top of a folding bed falling down (Lyttle v. Denny, 222 Pa. 395 ) ; the catching fire of an office floor after workmen had been working on it (Trostle v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 273 ); an. exploding glass jar containing coffee (Dillon v. William S. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 1953Examples of the proper application of the exclusive control doctrine would be, in my judgment, Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa., and Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa., supra; Skeen v. Stanley, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 ; Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa., supra; Dillon v. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 385 , 64 A. 2d 525 ; and the extreme case of Commonwealth v. Montour Transport Co., 365 Pa. 72 , 73 A. 2d 659 .	5	1953–1963
Loch v. Confair green pa · 1953 2 sentences 1980Our Supreme Court held that by not suing the retailer jointly with the bottler, plaintiff could not take advantage of the doctrine of exclusive control in Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa. 212 , 93 A.2d 451 (1953). 1980As the Court explained, there is only “a tenuous distinction . . . between the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the exclusive control doctrine.” Id., 372 Pa. at 216 , 93 A.2d at 453 .	4	1955–1980
Menger v. Lyon green pa · 1953 2 sentences 1980Our Supreme Court held that by not suing the retailer jointly with the bottler, plaintiff could not take advantage of the doctrine of exclusive control in Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa. 212 , 93 A.2d 451 (1953). 1980As the Court explained, there is only “a tenuous distinction . . . between the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the exclusive control doctrine.” Id., 372 Pa. at 216 , 93 A.2d at 453 .	4	1955–1980
Commonwealth v. Montour Transport Co. green pa · 1950 2 sentences 1960The exclusive control doctrine has been applied to many circumstances since Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., supra, including: The drifting of an unoccupied automobile down hill (Hickerson v. Daskam, 313 Pa. 379 ); an automobile leaving the highway (Knox v. Simmerman, 301 Pa. 1 ); the top of a folding bed falling down (Lyttle v. Denny, 222 Pa. 395 ) ; the catching fire of an office floor after workmen had been working on it (Trostle v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 273 ); an. exploding glass jar containing coffee (Dillon v. William S. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 1953Examples of the proper application of the exclusive control doctrine would be, in my judgment, Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa., and Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa., supra; Skeen v. Stanley, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 ; Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa., supra; Dillon v. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 385 , 64 A. 2d 525 ; and the extreme case of Commonwealth v. Montour Transport Co., 365 Pa. 72 , 73 A. 2d 659 .	4	1953–1963
Rennekamp v. Blair green pa · 1954 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina	3	1963–1968
Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Hummell neutral pa · 1863 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. [] "Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . [] "Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. [*] "Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 ." [] Italics	3	1963–1968
Novak v. Neff neutral pa · 1960 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina	3	1963–1968
Haddon v. Lotito green pa · 1960 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina	3	1963–1968
White v. Atlantic Refining Co. green pa · 1935 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. [] "Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . [] "Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. [*] "Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 ." [] Italics	3	1963–1968
Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. neutral pa · 1935 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. [] "Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . [] "Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. [*] "Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 ." [] Italics	3	1963–1968
Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. green pa · 1940 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina	3	1963–1968
Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad green pa · 1935 2 sentences 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina 1968Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. “* Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . “ Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morrow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also, Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. “* Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 .” Italics in Origina	3	1963–1968
Fitzpatrick v. Penfield green pa · 1920 2 sentences 1950The latter rule, known as the doctrine of exclusive control, is recognized and applied in Pennsylvania: Fitzpatrick v. Penfield, 267 Pa. 564, 577 , 109 A. 653 , and cases there cited. 1950The latter rule, known as the doctrine of exclusive control, is recognized and applied in Pennsylvania: Fitzpatrick v. Penfield, 267 Pa. 564, 577 , 109 A. 653 , and cases there cited.	3	1929–1960
Trostel v. Reading Steel Products Corp. green pasuperct · 1943 2 sentences 1996The Superior Court in Trostel v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Super. 273 , 31 A.2d 909 (1943), in analyzing the scope of the exclusive control doctrine, cautioned that “[i]t is the right of the party to have [the exclusive control doctrine] submitted to the jury, unless it be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.” Id. at 277 , 31 A.2d at 912 . 1996The Superior Court in Trostel v. Reading Steel Products Corporation, 152 Pa. Super. 273 , 31 A.2d 909 (1943), in analyzing the scope of the exclusive control doctrine, cautioned that “[i]t is the right of the party to have [the exclusive control doctrine] submitted to the jury, unless it be so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances.” Id. at 277 , 31 A.2d at 912 .	2	1960–1996
Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc. green pa · 1974 2 sentences 1980Our Supreme Court addressed itself to the exclusive control doctrine in Gilbert v. Korvette’s Inc., 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A. 2d 94 (1974). 1980Our Supreme Court addressed itself to the exclusive control doctrine in Gilbert v. Korvette’s Inc., 457 Pa. 602 , 327 A. 2d 94 (1974).	2	1979–1980
Cohen v. Penn Fruit Co. green pasuperct · 1960 2 sentences 1972Cohen v. Penn Fruit Co., Inc., 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 244 , 159 A. 2d 558 (1960); Jones v. Sanitary Market Co., 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 163 , 137 A. 2d 859 (1958); Rogers v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 183 Pa. Superior Ct. 83 , 127 A. 2d 762 (1956); DeClerico v. Gimbel Bros., Inc., 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 197 , 50 A. 2d 716 (1947). 1961As was said in Cohen v. Penn Fruit Company, Inc., 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 244 : “As a necessary basis for the application of the exclusive control doctrine, it must appear that the negligent cause or thing which produced the injury was wholly and exclusively in the possession and under the control or management of the defendant or his agents.	2	1961–1972
Bierstein v. Whitman green pa · 1948 2 sentences 1966Three very recent cases on the subject are Bierstein v. Whitman, 360 Pa. 537 , 62 A. 2d 843 ; Scacchi, Admr. v. Montgomery, 365 Pa. 377 , 75 A. 2d 535 ; and Powell v. Risser, 375 Pa. 60 , 99 A. 2d 454 . 1966Three very recent cases on the subject are Bierstein v. Whitman, 360 Pa. 537 , 62 A. 2d 843 ; Scacchi, Admr. v. Montgomery, 365 Pa. 377 , 75 A. 2d 535 ; and Powell v. Risser, 375 Pa. 60 , 99 A. 2d 454 .	2	1953–1966
Miller v. Montgomery green pa · 1959 2 sentences 1965Neither res ipsa loquitur nor the doctrine of exclusive control applies: Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa. 94 , 152 A. 2d 757 ; Seburn v. Luzerne & Carbon Co. M.T. 1965Neither res ipsa loquitur nor the doctrine of exclusive control applies: Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa. 94 , 152 A. 2d 757 ; Seburn v. Luzerne & Carbon Co. M.T.	2	1963–1965
Turek, Admrx. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. green pa · 1949 2 sentences 1965Appellant argues that the doctrine of exclusive control has been applied in situations in which plaintiff’s witnesses offered testimony showing not only the happening of the accident but also the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and in support thereof cites Trouser Corporation of America v. Goodman & Theise, Inc., 153 F. 2d 284 (3rd Cir. 1946); McManus v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, 8 Pa. D. & C. 2d 303 , affirmed per curiam, 389 Pa. 168 , 132 A. 2d 242 (1957) ; Turek v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 361 Pa. 512 , 64 A. 2d 779 (1949); and Noah W. 1965Appellant argues that the doctrine of exclusive control has been applied in situations in which plaintiff’s witnesses offered testimony showing not only the happening of the accident but also the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and in support thereof cites Trouser Corporation of America v. Goodman & Theise, Inc., 153 F. 2d 284 (3rd Cir. 1946); McManus v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, 8 Pa. D. & C. 2d 303 , affirmed per curiam, 389 Pa. 168 , 132 A. 2d 242 (1957) ; Turek v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 361 Pa. 512 , 64 A. 2d 779 (1949); and Noah W.	2	1950–1965
Stewart v. Morow green pa · 1961 2 sentences 1963The case is, on its facts, distinguishable from Stewart v. Morow, 403 Pa. 459 , 170 A. 2d 338 , where a small mirror, which rested on a mantelpiece in defendant’s home, suddenly fell and injured plaintiff (a maid) while she was performing her household cleaning duties. 1961Although such control does not necessarily mean actual physical control but rather the right to such control, where either access to superior knowledge or the evidence does not exclude the possibility of an intervening fault, the plaintiif is not entitled to benefit from the exclusive control doctrine. . . .” See also Stewart v. Morow, 403 Pa. 459 , where the exclusive control doctrine was not applicable because the evidence of the cause of the accident was equally available to both parties.	2	1961–1963
Skeen Et Vir v. Stanley Co. of America green pa · 1949 2 sentences 1953Examples of the proper application of the exclusive control doctrine would be, in my judgment, Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa., and Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa., supra; Skeen v. Stanley, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 ; Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa., supra; Dillon v. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 385 , 64 A. 2d 525 ; and the extreme case of Commonwealth v. Montour Transport Co., 365 Pa. 72 , 73 A. 2d 659 . 1953Examples of the proper application of the exclusive control doctrine would be, in my judgment, Shafer v. Lacock, Hawthorn & Co., 168 Pa., and Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa., supra; Skeen v. Stanley, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 ; Loch v. Confair, 372 Pa., supra; Dillon v. Scull Co., 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 385 , 64 A. 2d 525 ; and the extreme case of Commonwealth v. Montour Transport Co., 365 Pa. 72 , 73 A. 2d 659 .	2	1953–1963
Durning v. Hyman green pa · 1926 2 sentences 1963Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . * Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. **** Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 . * In the following ea 1963Miller v. Montgomery, 397 Pa., supra. Staller v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 339 Pa. 100 , 14 A. 2d 289 ; Cutler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, 319 Pa. 351 , 179 Atl. 434 . * Dobrowolski v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 319 Pa. 235 , 178 Atl. 488 ; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375 ; Stewart v. Morow, 403 Pa., supra; cf. also Haddon v. Lotito, 399 Pa. 521 , 161 A. 2d 160 ; Novak v. Neff, 399 Pa. 193 , 159 A. 2d 707 ; Davies v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa., supra. **** Rennekamp v. Blair, 375 Pa. 620 , 101 A. 2d 669 . * In the following ea	2	1953–1963
Lentz v. Allentown Bobbin Works neutral pa · 1927	2	1953–1961
Bashore v. Publix Shirt Corp. neutral pa · 1952	2	1953–1960
Knox v. Simmerman green pa · 1930	2	1959–1960
Anderson v. Murdoch Storage & Transfer Co. green pa · 1952	2	1953–1955
Emery v. Leavesly McCollum green pasuperct · 1999	1	2023–2023
Kiehl v. Action Manufacturing Co. green pa · 1987	1	2019–2019
Commonwealth v. Montgomery green pa · 1993	1	1997–1997
Betty v. Pace, as Administratrix of the Estate of Floyd J. Pace, Jr., Deceased v. Southern Express Company green ca7 · 1969	1	1978–1978
Johnson v. Otis Elevator Co. green pasuperct · 1973	1	1974–1974
Dougherty v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. green pasuperct · 1972	1	1973–1973
Miller v. Delaware County Memorial Hospital green pa · 1968	1	1973–1973
Rogers v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co. green pasuperct · 1956	1	1972–1972
Jones v. Sanitary Market Co. green pasuperct · 1958	1	1972–1972
Kaplan Trucking Co. v. Coshocton Cartage, Inc. neutral pasuperct · 1965	1	1972–1972
Borsa v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. green pasuperct · 1965	1	1972–1972

Where else courts name it

NJ 51 (1951–2025) PA 47 (1929–2023) CA 37 (1930–2025) MI 35 (1929–2026) NY 33 (1888–2026) IL 24 (1979–2023) TX 18 (1967–2025) DE 12 (1992–2025) MO 12 (1892–2023) AL 10 (1987–1999) WI 10 (1970–2026) AZ 10 (1968–2025) HI 9 (1957–2025) MS 9 (1964–2017) IA 9 (1936–2025) NC 8 (1938–2022) MN 7 (1909–2015) FL 7 (1977–2024) MT 7 (1976–2002) GA 7 (1938–2001) IN 6 (1980–2025) MD 6 (1944–2025) NM 6 (1968–2023) CO 6 (1931–2009) MA 6 (1996–2023) OR 5 (1982–2019) TN 5 (1976–2019) OK 5 (1937–2010) VT 5 (1991–2015) RI 5 (1959–2013) CT 5 (1975–2021) LA 4 (1940–2005) NV 4 (1996–2014) KY 4 (1845–2022) WA 4 (2013–2024) UT 3 (1942–2022) ME 3 (1996–2026) KS 3 (1915–2009) AR 3 (1982–2000) DC 2 (2022–2024) VA 2 (1988–1995) NH 2 (1973–1977) SC 2 (1996–2009) OH 2 (2012–2018) NE 2 (1991–1998) AK 2 (1972–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check