Case Name: Vincent P. NERTAVICH, Jr. v. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc., KTA/SET Environmental, S-E Technologies, Inc., Alexander Andrew, Inc., d/b/a Falltech, Alexander Andrew, Inc., Falltech, Thomas & Betts Corp., Thomas & Betts Corp., d/b/a or t/a Meyer Steel Structures, f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Industries, Meyer Steel Structures f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Steel Structures, ITT-Meyer Industries, Meyer Industries, Meyer Machine, Inc. and Winola Industrial, Inc. Petition of Vincent P. Nertavich, Jr
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2015-05-14
Citations: 631 Pa. 600
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vincent P. NERTAVICH, Jr. v. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc., KTA/SET Environmental, S-E Technologies, Inc., Alexander Andrew, Inc., d/b/a Falltech, Alexander Andrew, Inc., Falltech, Thomas & Betts Corp., Thomas & Betts Corp., d/b/a or t/a Meyer Steel Structures, f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Industries, Meyer Steel Structures f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Steel Structures, ITT-Meyer Industries, Meyer Industries, Meyer Machine, Inc. and Winola Industrial, Inc. Petition of Vincent P. Nertavich, Jr.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 631
Pages: 600–601

Head Matter:
114 A.3d 831
Vincent P. NERTAVICH, Jr. v. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, KTA, KTA-Tator, Inc., KTA/SET Environmental, S-E Technologies, Inc., Alexander Andrew, Inc., d/b/a Falltech, Alexander Andrew, Inc., Falltech, Thomas & Betts Corp., Thomas & Betts Corp., d/b/a or t/a Meyer Steel Structures, f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Industries, Meyer Steel Structures f/k/a I.T.T.-Meyer Industries, f/k/a Meyer Steel Structures, ITT-Meyer Industries, Meyer Industries, Meyer Machine, Inc. and Winola Industrial, Inc. Petition of Vincent P. Nertavich, Jr.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 14, 2015.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:
(1) In the face of the trial court's cumulative review of, and conclusion that the record evidence of PPL's operative control of the contractor's work was sufficient to allow the issue of PPL's liability to be presented to the jury, does the majority of the Superior Court panel conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. and § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
(2) Did the majority of the Superior Court panel err in adding an element of proof for imposing liability on a property owner under § 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that was not contained in and is in conflict with Beil v. Telesis Construction, Inc. ?