From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDermott v. Clara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 8, 2006
905 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In McDermott v. Burke, 256 Ill. 401, cited by defendant in error, where injury was caused from a hoisting apparatus near a sand pile where children played, the court said: "It is a necessary element of the liability that the thing which causes the injury is tempting to children and to constitute a means of attracting them upon the premises which the owner should anticipate."

Summary of this case from Burns v. City of Chicago
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

365 EDA 2005.

June 8, 2006.

Appeal from the 3578 Feb. T., 2002 (Philadelphia).

Affirmed.

Summaries of

McDermott v. Clara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 8, 2006
905 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)

In McDermott v. Burke, 256 Ill. 401, cited by defendant in error, where injury was caused from a hoisting apparatus near a sand pile where children played, the court said: "It is a necessary element of the liability that the thing which causes the injury is tempting to children and to constitute a means of attracting them upon the premises which the owner should anticipate."

Summary of this case from Burns v. City of Chicago

In McDermott v. Burke, 256 Ill. 401, a boy went upon private property to play in a sand pile and after playing there a while walked over to a place where some workmen were hoisting materials from the first to the second floor of a building under construction.

Summary of this case from Mindeman v. Sanitary District

In McDermott v. Burke, 16 Cal. 580, at page 586, it was stated: "It is not contended that a mortgagor in this state cannot lease mortgaged premises.

Summary of this case from Calidino H. Co. v. Bank of America, Etc.

In McDermott v. Burke, 256 Ill. 401, a child was attracted into a building under construction, by a sand pile which had been hauled in by teams and deposited near the center of the building for use in making mortar.

Summary of this case from Holmberg v. City of Chicago

In McDermott v. Burke, 16 Cal. 580, the supreme court, in considering the question, says: "The relation between the purchaser and tenant is that of owner and trespasser until some agreement, express or implied, is made between them with reference to the occupation."

Summary of this case from Knight v. Cohen
Case details for

McDermott v. Clara

Case Details

Full title:McDermott v. Clara Burke Nursing Home

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 8, 2006

Citations

905 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)

Citing Cases

Standard Steel Works Co. v. Chicago, A.s&sE. R. Co.

         Assuming that one who has a dangerous instrumentality on his land is under the duty of protecting…

Peers v. Pierre

In plaintiff's favor it might be said that decedent could not read or understand the sign. In McDermott v.…

44 Citing Cases