Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JANE R. HYATT AND KENNETH R. HYATT v. COUNTY ALLEGHENY AND ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS & SERVICES (09/30/88)

decided: September 30, 1988.

JANE R. HYATT AND KENNETH R. HYATT, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY AND ASSOCIATED CLEANING CONSULTANTS & SERVICES, INC., APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Jane R. Hyatt and Kenneth R. Hyatt, her husband v. County of Allegheny v. Associated Cleaning Consultants & Services, Inc., No. G.D. 84-18010.

COUNSEL

Lee Markovitz, for appellants.

Frederick N. Egler, Jr., Egler, Anstandig & Garrett, for appellee.

Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.

Author: Narick

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 162]

Jane R. and Kenneth R. Hyatt (Appellants) brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County against Allegheny County*fn1 and Associated Cleaning Consultants & Services, Inc. (Appellee) for damages sustained when Jane Hyatt (hereinafter Appellant) suffered

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 163]

    injuries in a fall at the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. At the conclusion of Appellant's case, the trial court directed the verdict in favor of Appellee, prompting this appeal.

In reviewing a trial court's grant of a directed verdict, we are guided by the following principles:

On a motion for directed verdict, the facts must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made and the court must accept as true all the evidence which supports that party's contention and must reject all the adverse testimony of the party seeking a directed verdict.

Heffner by Heffner v. Schad, 330 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 105, 478 A.2d 1372, 1374 (1984) (citation omitted). Further:

'A judge may direct a verdict for a plaintiff only if there are no facts upon which a jury could properly find for the defendant. . . . If there is a conflict of evidence, and the conflict provides a basis upon which a jury could possibly render a verdict for the party against whom the directed verdict is sought, the case must go to the jury. . . . However, the conflict must be real. If there is no more than a scintilla of evidence on the side ruled against, and a jury could not base its verdict upon that evidence, a directed verdict may still be proper.'

Reimer v. Tien, 356 Pa. Superior Ct. 192, 198, 514 A.2d 566, 568 (1986) (citations omitted).

At trial, Appellant testified that she was unhurriedly proceeding to her job as a customer service agent for USAir at the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport on December 13, 1982. As she was entering the airport, she passed through one set of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.