Crowell v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Mascaro does not preclude recovery on the basis of governmental immunity to claims of joint liability where the government's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm
• holding that a defendant's drunk driving conviction did not constitute a superseding cause and relieve the City of Philadelphia of liability for placing a dangerous street sign because, among other reasons, the defendant's criminal act of drunk driving was foreseeable
• stating that “joint liability is imposed on a person by virtue of actions taken in concert with another tortfeasor” (cleaned up)
• concluding that Mascaro does not preclude recovery on the basis of governmental immunity to claims of joint liability where the government’s 6 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b)(1). [J-9-2018] [MO: Todd, J.] - 5 negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm
• holding the City negligent when it erected a sign with a large directional arrow erroneously directing a driver to turn left instead of right causing the driver to strike another vehicle causing fatal injuries.
• explaining that a “governmental unit can be subjected to liability despite the presence of an additional tortfeasor if the governmental unit’s actions would be sufficient to preclude it from obtaining indemnity from another for injuries rendered to a third person”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).