Court Opinion

ID: 9703514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:59:18.939807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:49.765403
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my judgment, in view of all the testimony, the decedent was a trespasser as a matter of law at the time he came into contact with the pantograph. In addition, there was no evidence produced that would establish that appellant was engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. I, therefore, am of the opinion that judgment n. o. v. should have been entered. See, Engel v. Parkway Co., 439 Pa. 559, 266 A.2d 685 (1970); Porreca v. Atlantic Refining Co., 403 Pa. 171, 168 A.2d 564 (1961) and the cases cited therein.