Court Opinion

ID: 9639321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:12:26.532578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:13.917494
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Cohen:
I fail to see the relevancy of debating whether the injury was caused by Sleepy’s affectionate or vicious action. I also fail to see how the majority can imply that “the economic pressure of the job” negated the plaintiff’s “knowledge of the facts and understanding of the risks” incident to her employment. This case falls within the clear and precise language of Section 521 of the Restatement (2d), Agency (1958). See also Jerdon v. Sirulnik, 400 Pa. 423, 162 A. 2d 202 (1960). Since the defendants have violated no duty that they owed to the plaintiff I would affirm the judgment of the court below.